Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: Subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation

Breast

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 61-65

  Heil, Joerg ^a   Carolus, Anne ^a   Dahlkamp, Julia ^a   Golatta, Michael ^a   Domschke, Christoph ^a   Schuetz, Florian ^a   Blumenstein, Maria ^a   Rauch, Geraldine ^a   Sohn, Christof ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aesthetic outcome; Breast conserving surgery; Breast Neoplasms, surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESTHETICS; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; LYMPHADENECTOMY; MEDICAL PHOTOGRAPHY; MEDICAL STUDENT; NURSE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SUPPORT GROUP; SURGEON; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84856322429     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.013     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Al-Ghazal S.K., Blamey R.W. Cosmetic assessment of breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Breast 1999, 8:162-168.
2. Rew D.A. Towards a scientific basis for oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003, 29:105-106.
3. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J., Santos A.C., Barros H., Cardoso de Oliveira M. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 2006, 15:52-57.
4. Pezner R.D., Patterson M.P., Hill L.R., Vora N., Desai K.R., Archambeau J.O., et al. Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985, 11:575-578.
5. Van Limbergen E., van der Schueren E., Van Tongelen K. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother Oncol 1989, 16:159-167.
6. Sacchini V., Luini A., Tana S., Lozza L., Galimberti V., Merson M., et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1991, 27:1395-1400.
7. Tsouskas L.I., Fentiman I.S. Breast compliance: a new method for evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990, 15:185-190.
8. Kim M.S., Reece G.P., Beahm E.K., Miller M.J., Neely Atkinson E., Markey MK. Objective assessment of aesthetic outcomes of breast cancer treatment: measuring ptosis from clinical photographs. Comput Biol Med 2007, 37:49-59.
9. Cardoso M.J., 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.
10. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J.S., Wild T., Krois W., Fitzal F. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 116:149-152.
11. Hasson F., Keeney S., McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. JAdv Nurs 2000, 32:1008-1015.
12. Jones J., Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995, 311:376-380.
13. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. JAdv Nurs 2003, 41:376-382.
14. Heil J., Dahlkamp J., Golatta M., Rom J., Domschke C., Rauch G., et al. Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results Match patients' evaluations?. Ann Surg Oncol 2010.
15. Heil J., Holl S., Golatta M., Rauch G., Rom J., Marme F., et al. Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS). Breast 2010, 19:470-474.
16. Stanton A.L., Krishnan L., Collins C.A. Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 2001, 91:2273-2281.
17. Cardoso J.S., Pinto da Costa J.F., Cardoso M.J. Modelling ordinal relations with SVMs: an application to objective aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Neural Netw 2005, 18:808-817.
18. Clarke D., Martinez A., Cox R.S. Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1983, 9:1807-1813.
19. Al-Ghazal S.K., Fallowfield L., Blamey R.W. Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999, 25:344-346.
20. Taylor M.E., Perez C.A., Halverson K.J., Kuske R.R., Philpott G.W., Garcia D.M., et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 31:753-764.
21. Fleiss J.L., Cohen J. The Equivalence of weighted kappa and the Intraclass Correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973, 33:613-619.
22. Cicchetti D., Allison T. Anew procedure for assessing reliability of scoring eeg sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol 1971, 11:101-109.
23. Seigel D.G., Podgor M.J., Remaley N.A. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992, 135:571-578.
24. Fortin A.J., Cheang M., Latosinsky S. Cosmetic outcomes following breast conservation therapy: in search of a reliable scale. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006, 100:65-70.
25. Cardoso M.J., Santos A.C., Cardoso J., Barros H., Cardoso De Oliveira M. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:879-881.
26. 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 2007, 13:140-146.