Digital evaluation of breast cosmesis after breast-conserving treatment: End of the beginning

Breast

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 441-442

  Zgajnar, Janez ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; BODY MASS; BREAST CANCER; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION FUNCTION; EDITORIAL; ESTHETICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCAR FORMATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SKIN COLOR; STANDARDIZATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 34848812586     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.07.031     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Veronesi U., Cascinelli N., Mariani L., Greco M., Saccozzi R., Luini A., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347 16 (2002) 1227-1232
2. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., Margolese R.G., Deutsch M., Fisher E.R., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347 16 (2002) 1233-1241
3. Luini A., Gatti G., Zurrida S., Talakhadze N., Brenelli F., Gilardi D., et al. The evolution of the conservative approach to breast cancer. Breast 16 2 (2007) 120-129
4. Anderson B.O., Masetti R., and Silverstein M.J. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol 6 3 (2005) 145-157
5. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J., Santos A.C., Barros H., and Cardoso de O.M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15 1 (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 4 (1985) 327-330
7. Van L.E., van der S.E., and Van T.K. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother Oncol 16 3 (1989) 159-167
8. Fitzal F., Krois W., Trischler H., Wutzel L., Riedl O., Kuhbelbock U., et al. The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast 16 4 (2007) 429-435
9. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N, Azevedo I, Barreau L, Bernardo M, et al. Turning subjective into objective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast 2007; this issue, doi:10.1016/j.breast.2007.05.002.
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 3 (2000) 219-232
11. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J., Santos A.C., Vrieling C., Christie D., Liljegren G., et al. Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J 13 2 (2007) 140-146