A comparison of different methods of assessing cosmetic outcome following breastconserving surgery and factors influencing cosmetic outcome

British Journal of Medical Practitioners

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Charfare, H ^a   MacLatchie, E ^b   Cordier, C ^b   Bradley, M ^c   Eadie, C ^b   Byrtus, A ^d   Burnet, K ^e   Chapman, D ^e   Wishart, G C ^e   Purushotham, A D ^d  

^a BEDFORD HOSPITAL NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast conserving surgery; Cosmetic assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954560673     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17578515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart Jet al. The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 26 (6): 566-570
2. Van Limbergen E, Rijnders A, van der Scheuren 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. Radiother and Oncol 1989; 16: 253-267
3. Christie DRH, O'Brien MY, Christie JA et al. A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. The Breast 1996; 5: 358-367
4. Ash D V, Benson E A, Sainsbury J R et al. Seven year follow-up on 334 patients treated by breast-conserving surgery and short course of radical postoperative radiotherapy: a report of the Yorkshire breast cancer group. Clin Onco (R Coll Radiol) 1995; 7 (2): 93-96
5. Eadie C, Herd A, Stallard S: An investigation into digital imaging in assessing cosmetic outcome after breast surgery. J Audiovisual Media in Medicine 2000; 23 (1): 12-16
6. Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45 (3): 667-676
7. Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G et al: Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stage I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979; 5: 257-261
8. Siegel S, Castellan Jr NJ. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1988, 284-291.
9. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman & Hall, 1991, 404.
10. Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Vora NL et al. Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 1117-1119
11. Fujishiro S, Mitsumori M, Kokubo M et al. Cosmetic results and complications after breast-conserving therapy for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2000; 7 (1): 57-63
12. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 25 (4): 344-346
13. Kaija H, Rauni S, Jorma I et al. Consistency of patient-and doctor assessed cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of breast cancer. Breast cancer Res Treat 1997; 45 (3): 225-228
14. Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H et al. The use of breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. The Breast 2007; 16: 429-435
15. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso J, Amaral N et al. Turning objective into subjective: The BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative management. The Breast 2007; 16: 456-461
16. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM et al. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with percentage breast volume excised. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 1505-1509
17. A Munshi, S Kakkar, R bhutani et al. Factors influencing cosmetic outcome in breast conservation. Clin Oncol 2009; 21: 285-293