The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis

Breast

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 429-435

  Fitzal, F ^a   Krois, W ^a   Trischler, H ^a   Wutzel, L ^a   Riedl, O ^c   Kuhbelbock U ^a   Wintersteiner, B ^a   Cardoso, M J ^b   Dubsky, P ^a   Gnant, M ^a   Jakesz, R ^a   Wild, T ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b University of Porto   (Portugal)

^c State Hospital Krems   (Austria)

Author keywords

Breast surgery; Patient evaluation; Quality of life; Surgical outcome

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; ESTHETIC SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 34547483025     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Hopwood P., Fletcher I., Lee A., and Al Ghazal S. A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 37 (2001) 189-197
2. Hengartner M.O., and Horvitz H.R.C. Elegans cell survival gene ced-9 encodes a functional homolog of the mammalian proto-oncogene bcl-2. Cell 76 (1994) 665-676
3. Cardoso M.J., Santos A.C., Cardoso J., Barros H., and Cardoso de Oliveira M. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61 (2005) 879-881
4. Ching S., Thoma A., McCabe R.E., and Antony M.M. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 111 (2003) 469-480 [discussion 481-2]
5. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J., Santos A.C., Barros H., and Cardoso de Oliveira M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15 (2006) 52-57
6. Pezner R.D., Patterson M.P., Hill L.R., Vora N.L., Desai K.R., and Lipsett J.A. Breast retraction assessment. Multiple variable analysis of factors responsible for cosmetic retraction in patients treated conservatively for stage I or II breast carcinoma. Acta Radiol Oncol 24 (1985) 327-330
7. Van Limbergen E., Rijnders A., van der Schueren E., Lerut T., Christiaens R., and Van Tongelen K. 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. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother Oncol 16 (1989) 253-267
8. 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. Radiother Oncol 16 (1989) 159-167
9. Harris J.R., Levene M.B., and Svensson G. Analyses of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5 (1979) 257-261
10. Vrieling C., Collette L., Fourquet A., Hoogenraad W.J., Horiot J.H., Jager J.J., et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost vs. no boost' trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. Radiother Oncol 55 (2000) 219-232