Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :1588
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate here
  Search
 
  
Resource links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »  Article in PDF (1,137 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
 »  Abstract
 » Introduction
 »  Materials and Me...
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3480    
    Printed108    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded515    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal

 

  Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 58-62
 

Assessment of cosmetic outcome of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery in women with early breast cancer: A prospective cohort study


Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Date of Web Publication18-Jun-2014

Correspondence Address:
A Srivastava
Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.134629

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the cosmetic outcome of patients undergoing oncoplastic breast conserving surgery in Indian population. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort of 35 patients who were eligible for breast conservation surgery was included in the study from year 2007 to 2009. Patients with central quadrant tumors were excluded from the study. A double - blind cosmetic assessment was done by a plastic surgeon and a senior nurse not involved in the management of patients. Moreover, self-assessment was carried out by the patient regarding the satisfaction of surgery, comfort with brasserie, social and sexual life after oncoplastic surgery. Results: In this study, 35 patients underwent oncoplastic breast conservation surgery by various techniques. The cosmetic outcome scores of the surgeon and nurse were analyzed for inter rater agreement using inter-class Correlation Coefficients. There was a good association between them. The risk factors for poor cosmetic outcome was studied by univariate analysis and significant correlation was obtained with age, volume of breast tissue excised and estimated percentage of breast volume excised (P < 0.05). Moreover, 96% of patients were moderately to extremely satisfied with the surgery. Patients were offered an option for cosmetic correction of contralateral breast by mastopexy or reduction mammoplasty however, none of them agreed for another procedure. Conclusions: Oncoplastic breast surgery helps to resect larger volume of tissue with wider margins around the tumor. It helps to achieve better cosmesis and extends the indications for breast conservation. Most of the patients were satisfied with mere preservation of the breast mound rather than a symmetrical contralateral breast.


Keywords: Oncoplastic breast surgery, breast conserving surgery, breast cancer


How to cite this article:
Adimulam G, Challa V R, Dhar A, Chumber S, Seenu V, Srivastava A. Assessment of cosmetic outcome of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery in women with early breast cancer: A prospective cohort study. Indian J Cancer 2014;51:58-62

How to cite this URL:
Adimulam G, Challa V R, Dhar A, Chumber S, Seenu V, Srivastava A. Assessment of cosmetic outcome of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery in women with early breast cancer: A prospective cohort study. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Dec 2];51:58-62. Available from: https://www.indianjcancer.com/text.asp?2014/51/1/58/134629



 » Introduction Top


Breast conservative surgery (BCS) along with radiotherapy has now become an alternative to mastectomy for breast cancer. However, the esthetic outcome is not satisfactory in 30% of patients who undergo BCS. [1],[2] There are various plastic surgery techniques described after BCS for better cosmetic results like volume displacement techniques and volume replacement procedures. Oncoplastic surgery a new specialty with a combined effort of oncological surgeon and plastic surgeon has evolved for the benefit of these patients. Oncoplasty allows removing large tumors with wider margins and good cosmetic results. [3] The term oncoplasty is poorly defined with various authors using it for various extent of reconstruction. [4],[5] Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is an intermediate to BCS and mastectomy where a subset of patients who are not candidates for BCS can be considered for conservation with the addition of plastic surgical techniques without compromising the oncological results and improving esthetic outcome. The type of reconstruction to be used depends on the amount of breast tissue removed and the location of the tumor.

The study was conducted with an aim to determine the outcomes of various techniques of breast oncoplasty in terms of cosmesis, margin status after lumpectomy and complications. This is one of the few prospective studies conducted in the sub-continent with an aim to assess cosmesis after oncoplastic surgery in breast cancer patients after breast conserving surgery.


 » Materials and Methods Top


A total of 35 patients with an established diagnosis of breast cancer on core needle biopsy with a study period from November 2007 to October 2009 were considered. Patients with tumor size less than 4 cm, involving one quadrant of single breast without skin involvement or chest wall involvement were included in the study after informed consent. Ethical committee clearance was obtained for the conduct of the study from the institutional ethics committee. Patients with tumor size >4 cm, two or more tumors involving more than one quadrant, patients with previous breast irradiation, patients with a previous history of surgery on the same breast and tumors involving central quadrant were excluded from the study.

All patients included in the study underwent sonomammogram of both breasts. Patients with suspicious axillary nodes were subjected to ultrasound guided Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). All patients whose FNAC was reported as positive for nodal metastasis underwent full axillary dissection without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Patients were assessed by the operating surgeons and radiation oncologist preoperatively and pre-operative counseling done in the departmental Breast Cancer clinic.

Preoperative estimated breast volume was measured in lying down position with arm above the head and a small pillow below the ipsilateral shoulder. The device used was Grossman and Rounder method. In this method a transparent plastic sheet is molded into the shape of the breast, and the reading over the edge of sheet gives the approximate breast volume in milliliters [Figure 1]a and b. For patients with clinically and sonographically negative axilla, SLNB was performed by combined technique using Tc-99m sulfur colloid and Isosulphane blue dye. Blue and/or hot nodes and any palpable nodes were removed and sent for frozen section. Full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was carried out in those patients showing metastasis in the sentinel node. The tumor was excised with 2 cm margin all around the tumor. In large tumors this amounted to quadrantectomy.
Figure 1: (a) Grossman Rounder device. (b) Measurement of breast volume using Grossman Rounder device. (c) Inframammary fold oncoplasty for lower half tumors of breast. (d)Lateral axillary crease incision for lateral half tumors

Click here to view


The tumor was approached through a curvilinear elliptical incision in the upper half of the breast and a radial incision in the lower half. In case of tumors located near the axilla, we approached the lesion as well as axillary nodes through a single incision placed along the natural axillary skin crease. The oncoplastic technique varied depending on the location of tumor, size of the breast and volume of the breast tissue excised. After removing the tumor, the volume and weight of the specimen measured immediately. Volume of the excised specimen was measured using water displacement method. The specimen was cut open to assess tumor size and width of margins.

In the follow-up, patients were seen jointly by the multidisciplinary team to plan the adjuvant therapy and thereafter patients were seen 3 monthly in the breast clinic. Cosmetic assessment was performed 6 months after surgery. The cosmetic assessment was carried out by a single lady nurse and a plastic surgeon who were not involved in patient management. Cosmetic score was assessed individually using the predetermined criteria. The seven criteria included were shape with brasserie, shape without brasserie, symmetry to the opposite breast, mobility, condition of inframammary fold, consistency and overall appearance. Patients were also given a questionnaire for the subjective assessment of satisfaction after surgery. The four criteria used were satisfaction after surgery, comfort with brasserie, social and sexual life after BCS.

The Statistical software namely SAS 9.2, SPSS 15.0, Stata 10.1, MedCalc 9.0.1, Systat 12.0 and R environment version 2.11.1 were used for the analysis of the data and Microsoft word and Excel have been used to generate graphs, tables, etc., The degree of agreement between plastic surgeon and nurse in assessing cosmesis was assessed using inter-class correlation (ICC). Various factors affecting cosmetic outcome and margin status were correlated with surgeon's total cosmetic score. Status of pathological margin (positive vs. negative) was analyzed in terms of tumor size, age, neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For continuous variables, Mann-Whitney U test was used and for categorical variables, Fisher's exact test was applied.


 » Results Top


A total of 35 patients of early breast cancer were recruited. The results were obtained with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Four patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy three cycles of FEC regimen, i.e., 5-Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, Cyclophosphamide as they had clinical tumor size of 4 cm with smaller breasts. The mean age of the patients was 46.94 years ± 10.45 (Range: 35-59 years). The mean clinical size of the tumor was 2.84 cm ± 0.8 cm (Range: 1.4-4 cm). Of 35 patients, 23 had tumor located in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ), 4 in the upper inner quadrant (UIQ), 5 in the lower inner quadrant (LIQ) and 3 in the lower outer quadrant (LOQ). The type of oncoplastic procedure was based on the location of tumor, percentage of breast volume excised and the need for ALND/SLNB [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. Type of oncoplasty techniques performed are listed in [Table 1].
Figure 2: Oncoplasty techniques. (a and b) Technique of superior pedicle based dermoglandular oncoplasty performed for lower half tumors. (c and d) Cosmetic result following dough-nut mastopexy for tumors close to nipple areola complex

Click here to view
Table 1: Type of oncoplasty procedure performed

Click here to view


Volume of excised specimen was in the range of 210-380 ml. Mean volume was 293 ml. The mean estimated percentage of breast volume excised (EPBVE) was 26.6% (Range: 20-32%). A second surgery was performed in five patients (14.3%). Three had positive margins, one patient developed a hematoma on the postoperative day 6 that needed surgical evacuation. One patient developed radiation induced non-healing ulcer after 6 months of surgery. Of the three patients with positive margins, margin revision was performed in two patients and mastectomy was performed in one patient. During the mean follow-up period of 28 months (Range: 6 months-48 months), none of the patient developed recurrence. Simple mastectomy was performed for the patient with radiation induced non-healing ulcer [Figure 3]e.
Figure 3: (a and b) Radial segmentectomy for Upper quadrant tumor and axillary dissection performed through the same incision. (c) Curvilinear incision with breast advancement flap for the upper half tumors. (d) Accelerated partial breast irradiation by Brachytherapy. (e) Radiation induced non-healing ulcer with intense fibrosis and poor cosmesis

Click here to view


Status of pathological margin (positive vs. negative) were analyzed in terms of tumor volume excised, age and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. None of these factors analyzed had a significant effect on pathological margin. Whole breast irradiation (50 Gy, 25 fractions) followed by the boost to the tumor bed (16 Gy, 8 fractions) were given in 33 patients. Two patients received accelerated partial breast irradiation through interstitial brachytherapy ports [Figure 3]d. Thirty two patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Twenty patients who were Estrogen/Progesterone positive received hormonal therapy.

Cosmetic outcome could be assessed in 25 patients (2 patients who underwent mastectomy and 8 patients who underwent BCS were lost to follow-up were excluded). It was assessed by seven variables (shape with bra, shape without bra, symmetry, mobility, consistency, appearance of infra mammary fold and overall appearance.) The final score (range: 7 to 26) was the sum of individual scores for the seven variables. The cosmetic outcome was assessed by a plastic surgeon and a nurse independently, using the same seven criteria. The score obtained was categorized into four outcomes as poor (≤15), fair (16-18), good (19-22) and excellent (23-26). Total score given by surgeon was in the range of 8-25. Average score was 18.8. Total score given by nurse was in the range of 11-26. Average score was 20.12. Both of them had 12% of patients with poor cosmetic outcome and the rest of the patients had fair, good or excellent results. Total cosmetic scores given by a plastic surgeon and nurse were analyzed for inter-rater agreement using ICC. There was outstanding agreement between the two observers (ICC value: 0.8946). Since there was outstanding inter-rater agreement between the surgeon and nurse regarding cosmetic outcome, we tried to analyze the factors affecting this outcome, using univariate analysis. Analysis was performed to find out the correlation between the cosmetic score provided by the surgeon and various factors such as age of the patient, tumor size, site of tumor, volume of specimen removed, breast volume, ALND and axillary radiotherapy. Continuous variables, i.e., age, tumor size, breast volume, volume of specimen, percentage of breast volume excised were analyzed using Pearson Correlation. Categorical variables, i.e., site of tumor, ALND, axillary radiotherapy were analyzed using student t-test. Since the majority of tumors in our study were in UOQ, we compared this site of tumor with other sites combined (i.e., UIQ + LOQ + LIQ). The results are given in [Table 2]. The overall rate of immediate complications in our study was 14.2% (5/35). Three patients developed wound infection, one patient developed hematoma and one patient developed flap necrosis. Three patients who developed wound infection were managed with a course of antibiotics and it did not affect the final cosmesis. Four patients developed arm edema (11.4%). Self-assessment by the patient was assessed by a questionnaire, of which 12 out of 25 women (48%) were extremely satisfied with surgery, 12 (48%) women were moderately satisfied and one woman (4%) was not satisfied. Fourteen out of 25 women (56%) reported that they were comfortable with brasserie. Ten women (40%) were comfortable with minor adjustments. One woman (4%) told that she was uncomfortable with brasserie. None of them reported that they need a pad to mask the cosmetic deformity. Majority, 84% (21/25) of women felt that their social life was not affected by the surgery. Three women (12%) expressed that their social life was improved with surgery; where as 1 woman (4%) reported deterioration in social life after surgery. Seventeen women (68%) felt that their sexual life was not affected after surgery, whereas 8 women (32%) reported that their sexual life detoriorated after surgery.
Table 2: Univariate analysis between surgeon's total cosmetic score and other variables

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Oncoplastic surgery according to Audretsch is tumor specific immediate reconstruction for breast conservation by using plastic techniques. [4],[5] John Bostwick III described oncoplastic breast surgery for reconstruction after breast conservation or total mastectomy, immediate or delayed reconstruction, immediate repair for locally advanced breast cancers and recurrence. [5] Clough described two levels depending on the volume of breast tissue and the complexity of reconstruction procedure. [6] Urban had described three classes in order to improve the skills of surgical trainees based on the complexity of the procedure. [7],[8],[9] Hoffmann developed a complex classification system where he described two type, six tier classification system with 12 main categories, 13 subcategories and 39 sub-sub categories for oncoplastv breast surgery. [10] Various classifications were proposed to define when should a volume displacement technique to be used and when a volume replacement technique to be done. Selection criteria for volume displacement or volume replacement technique was based on the amount of breast tissue excised (<20% or 20-50%), size of breasts, presence/absence of ptosis and location of the tumor. If excised tumor volume is <20% with medium and large breasts in lateral and superior quadrants, volume displacement with adjacent tissue rearrangement can be done. If loss of breast volume is 20-50% in a medium to large ptotic breasts, a volume displacement technique with reduction mammoplasty will suffice. If loss is 20-50% in non ptotic breast of medium and small size, and in patients who does want to undergo mastectomy or contralateral reduction mammoplasty, a volume replacement techniques is to be considered. [11]

In our study one patient underwent volume replacement and rest all underwent volume displacement techniques. The most common volume displacement technique done was breast parenchymal advancement flap where we mobilized the breast plates and later closed the defect.

Few studies have compared standard BCS with oncoplastic BCS and found larger volume of excision and better free margins in patients who underwent oncoplastic BCS. [12],[13]

In the present study, only age (P = 0.024), volume of specimen (P = 0.019), and percentage of breast volume excised (P = 0.017) were found to affect the cosmesis significantly by univariate analysis. Large breasts were associated with poorer cosmetic outcomes compared to small breasts in one study. [14] Touboul et al., studied a group of 329 patients and concluded that age significantly affected cosmetic results, obtaining more excellent and good results in younger patients. [15] Steeves et al., had also found a significant association between young age and better cosmesis in a study of 124 patients. [16] Our study also showed similar results of better cosmesis in younger patients. Reduced fat content which helps in more homogenous radiation with less fat necrosis and probably the increased cosmetic consciousness of the treating surgeon in young patients may be putative explanations for this better cosmesis in this group. Many studies consistently proved the negative impact of volume/weight of the specimen removed with ultimate cosmesis. [17] Cochrane et al., showed that both cosmesis and patient satisfaction was correlated with EPBVE. When EPBVE was less than 10%, 83.5% of patients had the satisfaction, whereas if >10% was excised only 37.0% were satisfied. [18] Taylor et al., proved adverse cosmetic outcome when >100 cm 3 of breast tissue was removed. [19] In our study mean EPBVE was 26.6% and we found significant negative correlation between EPBVE and cosmesis. Recently a study by Niwinska et al., found quadrantectomy and brachytherapy were associated with poor cosmetic outcome when compared with tumorectomy and electrons. [20] In the present study, two patients received brachytherapy irradiation and both of them developed infection, though they didn't have poor cosmetic outcome. Few studies showed that axillary lymph node radiotherapy was associated with poorer outcome, though in the present study it was not significant. [21],[22]

A systematic review of oncoplastic breast surgery was carried out by Franceschini et al., were they evaluated 11 studies on volume displacement techniques. This study showed that risk of margin involvement varied from 0% to 18.9%, risk of local recurrence from 0% to 13% and excellent-good cosmetic result was obtained in 70% to 95% of patients. [11] In the present study, the incidence of immediate complications was 8.5% (3/35) with no local recurrence. In a study by Patterson et al., appearance of the treated breast was rated good to excellent by 94%, although 88% noted a difference of slight to moderate degree between treated and untreated breasts. [21] In the present study, none of the patients underwent mastopexy/reduction mammoplasty to the contralateral breast though they had been counseled for a second surgery for better cosmesis. In our study, as analyzed by a plastic surgeon and nurse, 88% of patients had good to excellent outcomes and when objective assessment by patient satisfaction on cosmetic outcome was done 96% of patients had good to excellent results on satisfaction of the cosmesis. This satisfaction was not necessarily based on objective criteria defining esthetic parameters, but is strongly influenced by preservation of the breast as an original body part. Since the loss of breast would be considered as loss of feminity and a social stigma, mere preservation of breast provides high satisfaction.


 » Conclusion Top


Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery should be offered to all patients undergoing wide local excision of breast tumor. It involves simple techniques and most of the time breast advancement will suffice. Patient satisfaction with BCS and oncoplasty is very high.

 
 » References Top

1.Clough KB, Cuminet J, Fitoussi A, Nos C, Mosseri V. Cosmetic sequelae after conservative treatment for breast cancer: Classification and results of surgical correction. Ann Plast Surg 1998;41:471-81.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.D′Aniello C, Grimaldi L, Barbato A, Bosi B, Carli A. Cosmetic results in 242 patients treated by conservative surgery for breast cancer. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1999;33:419-22.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Lanitis S, Hadjiminas D. Oncoplastic surgery: Taking breast surgery to the next level. Hell J Surg 2012;84:92-105.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Audretsch W. Space-holding technic and immediate reconstruction of the female breast following subcutaneous and modified radical mastectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1987;241 Suppl:S11-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Rancati A, Gonzalez E, Dorr J, Angrigiani C. Oncoplastic surgery in the treatment of breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 2013;7:293.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM. Improving breast cancer surgery: A classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1375-91.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Urban C, Lima R, Schunemann E, Spautz C, Rabinovich I, Anselmi K. Oncoplastic principles in breast conserving surgery. Breast 2011;20 Suppl 3:S92-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Urban CA. Oncoplastic in a pre-paradigm era: A Brazilian perspective in an American problem. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1839-41;1841.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.de Andrade Urban C. New classification for oncoplastic procedures in surgical practice. Breast 2008;17:321-2.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Hoffmann J, Wallwiener D. Classifying breast cancer surgery: A novel, complexity-based system for oncological, oncoplastic and reconstructive procedures, and proof of principle by analysis of 1225 operations in 1166 patients. BMC Cancer 2009;9:108.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Franceschini G, Terribile D, Magno S, Fabbri C, Accetta C, Di Leone A, et al. Update on oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2012;16:1530-40.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, Maffini F, Luini A, Gatti G, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:539-45.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, El Gareh N, Rihaoui S, Taourel P, et al. Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:605-14.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Gray JR, McCormick B, Cox L, Yahalom J. Primary breast irradiation in large-breasted or heavy women: Analysis of cosmetic outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:347-54.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Touboul E, Belkacemi Y, Lefranc JP, Uzan S, Ozsahin M, Korbas D, et al. Early breast cancer: Influence of type of boost (electrons vs iridium-192 implant) on local control and cosmesis after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1995;34:105-13.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Steeves RA, Phromratanapongse P, Wolberg WH, Tormey DC. Cosmesis and local control after irradiation in women treated conservatively for breast cancer. Arch Surg 1989;124:1369-73.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, Hoogenraad WJ, Horiot JH, Jager JJ, 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 2000;55:219-32.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 2003;90:1505-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, Kuske RR, Philpott GW, Garcia DM, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:753-64.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Niwinska A, Galecki J, Monika N, Hanna T. Risk factors of cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer patients after breast conserving therapy. Open Breast Cancer J 2009;1:18-24.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Borger JH, Kemperman H, Smitt HS, Hart A, van Dongen J, Lebesque J, et al. Dose and volume effects on fibrosis after breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;30:1073-81.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Patterson MP, Pezner RD, Hill LR, Vora NL, Desai KR, Lipsett JA. Patient self-evaluation of cosmetic outcome of breast-preserving cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985;11:1849-52.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Paving the way for changing perceptions in breast surgery: a systematic literature review focused on oncological and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer
I. G. Papanikolaou,C. Dimitrakakis,F. Zagouri,S. Marinopoulos,A. Giannos,E. Zografos,C. G. Zografos,D. Kritikou,A. Rodolakis,G. C. Zografos,D. Loutradis
Breast Cancer. 2019; 26(4): 416
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Acceptance of contralateral reduction mammoplasty after oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: A semi-structured qualitative interview study
Hansje P. Smeele,Eline M.L. Van der Does de Willebois,Yassir Eltahir,Geertruida H. De Bock,Vera C. Van Aalst,Liesbeth Jansen
The Breast. 2019; 45: 97
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Reconstruction in Breast Conservation Therapy—Single Tertiary Care Institution Experience with 472 Patients
Juhi Agrawal,Sandeep Mehta,Ashish Goel,Veda Padmapriya Selvakumar,Kapil Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Pande
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2018; 9(3): 362
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Immediate breast reconstruction with omental flap for luminal breast cancer patients
Nanlin Li,Zhao Zheng,Jipeng Li,Jing Fan,Ting Wang,Juliang Zhang,Hui Wang,Jianghao Chen,Yonggang Lv,Jun Yi,Meiling Huang,Rui Ling
Medicine. 2017; 96(33): e7797
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Are Breast Surgical Operations Clean or Clean Contaminated?
Kamal Kataria,Amit Bagdia,Anurag Srivastava
Indian Journal of Surgery. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow