Objective assessment of aesthetic outcomes of breast cancer treatment: Measuring ptosis from clinical photographs

Computers in Biology and Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 49-59

  Kim, Min Soon ^a   Reece, Gregory P ^b   Beahm, Elisabeth K ^b   Miller, Michael J ^b   Neely Atkinson, E ^b   Markey, Mia K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Computer assisted; Diagnosis; Photogrammetry; Photography; Ptosis; Reconstructive surgical procedures

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER TREATMENT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST PTOSIS; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

BIOLOGICAL ORGANS; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MEDICAL IMAGING; PHOTOGRAPHY;

CARDIOLOGY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST MALFORMATION; BREAST PTOSIS; CANCER SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; NIPPLE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 33750047549     PISSN: 00104825     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2005.10.007     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Cancer Facts and Figures 2005, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, 2005.
2. Khoo A., et al. A comparison of resource costs of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 101 4 (1998) 964-968 discussion 969-970
3. Kroll S.S., et al. Comparison of resource costs of free and conventional TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 98 1 (1996) 74-77
4. ASPS, 2000/2001/2002 National Plastic Surgery Statistics, ASPS, Arlington Heights, IL, 2003.
5. Christie D.R., O'brien M.Y., and Christie J.A. A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast 5 (1996) 358-367
6. Eadie C., Herd A., and Stallard S. An investigation into digital imaging in assessing cosmetic outcome after breast surgery. J. Audiovisual Media Med. 23 1 (2000) 12-16
7. Lowery J.C., et al. Evaluations of aesthetic results in breast reconstruction: an analysis of reliability. Ann. Plast. Surg. 36 6 (1996) 601-606 discussion 607
8. Pezner R.D., et al. Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11 6 (1985) 1117-1119
9. Sneeuw K.C., et al. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer, 1. Comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings, and objective assessments. Radiotherapy Oncol. 25 3 (1992) 153-159
10. Romestaing P., et al. Role of a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J. Clin. Oncol. 15 3 (1997) 963-968
11. Brown M.E., Semple J., and Neligan P. Variables affecting symmetry of the nipple-areola complex. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 96 (1995) 846
12. ShaikhNaidu N., et al. Determinants of aesthetic satisfaction following TRAM and implant breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 52 0148-7043 (2004) 465-470
13. Woerdeman L.A., et al. Breast-conserving therapy in patients with a relatively large (T2 or T3) breast cancer: long-term local control and cosmetic outcome of a feasibility study. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 113 6 (2004) 1607-1616
14. Turesson I., and Notter G. The influence of fraction size in radiotherapy on the late normal tissue reaction-I: comparison of the effects of daily and once-a-week fractionation on human skin. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 10 5 (1984) 593-598
15. Bostwick J. Third Plastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. second ed. (1999), Quality Medical Pub.
16. Regnault P. Breast ptosis, definition and treatment. Clin. Plast. Surg. 3 2 (1976) 193-203
17. Martini F.H., Timmons M.J., and Mckinley M.P. Human Anatomy. third ed. (2000), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
18. Sacchini V., et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 27 11 (1991) 1395-1400
19. Veiga D.F., et al. Evaluations of the aesthetic results and patient satisfaction with the late pedicled TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 48 5 (2002) 515-520
20. Vrieling C., et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC "boost versus no boost" trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 45 3 (1999) 667-676
21. Netcher D.T. Aesthetic outcome of breast implant removal in 85 consecutive patients. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 113 3 (2004) 1057-1059
22. Bartelink H., van Dam F., and van Dongen J. Psychological effects of breast conserving therapy in comparison with radical mastectomy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11 2 (1985) 381-385
23. Smith Jr. D.J., et al. Breast volume and anthropomorphic measurements: normal values. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 78 3 (1986) 331-335
24. Brown T.P., et al. A method of assessing female breast morphometry and its clinical application. Brit. J. Plast. Surg. 52 5 (1999) 355-359
25. Westreich M. Anthropomorphic breast measurement: protocol and results in 50 women with aesthetically perfect breasts and clinical application. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 100 2 (1997) 468-479
26. Kuzbari R., et al. Surgical treatment of developmental asymmetry of the breast Long term results. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 27 3 (1993) 203-207
27. Malata C.M., et al. Congenital breast asymmetry: subjective and objective assessment. Brit. J. Plast. Surg. 47 2 (1994) 95-102
28. Stark B., and Olivari N. Breast asymmetry: an objective analysis of postoperative results. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 14 (1991) 173-176
29. Smith Jr. D.J., et al. Surgical treatment of congenital breast asymmetry. Ann. Plast. Surg. 17 2 (1986) 92-101
30. Al-Ghazal S.K., et al. The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 25 6 (1999) 566-570
31. Malata C.M., McIntosh S.A., and Purushotham A.D. Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer. Br. J. Surg. 87 11 (2000) 1455-1472
32. DiBernardo B.E., et al. Photographic standards in plastic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 102 2 (1998) 559-568
33. Ellenbogen R., Jankauskas S., and Collini F.J. Achieving standardized photographs in aesthetic surgery. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 86 5 (1989) 955-958
34. DiSaia J.P., Ptak J.J., and Achauer B.M. Digital photography for the plastic surgeon [Special Topic]. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 102 2 (1998) 569-573
35. Gherardini G., et al. Standardization in photography for body contour surgery and suction-assisted lipectomy. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 100 1 (1997) 227-237
36. Sacchini V., et al. The influence of radiotherapy on cosmetic outcome after breast conservative surgery. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 33 1 (1995) 59-64
37. Pezner R.D., et al. Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11 3 (1985) 575-578
38. Van Limbergen E., et al. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer, 2. A quantitative analysis of the influence of radiation dose, fractionation schedules and surgical treatment techniques on cosmetic results. Radiotherapy Oncol. 16 4 (1989) 253-267
39. Van Limbergen E., van der Schueren E., and Van Tongelen K. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer, 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiotherapy Oncol. 16 3 (1989) 159-167
40. Harris J.R., et al. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int. J. Rad. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 5 2 (1979) 257-261