Mátrai Zoltán, Gulyás Gusztáv, Kovács Eszter, Sándor Zsuzsanna, Polgár Csaba, Bartal Alexandra, Kásler Miklós
Emlõ- és Lágyrészsebészeti Osztály, Országos Onkológiai Intézet, Budapest, Hungary.
Radiológiai Diagnosztikai Osztály, Országos Onkológiai Intézet, Budapest, Hungary.
Magy Onkol. 2014 Jun;58(2):116-27. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
Oncoplastic surgical techniques seem to be suitable for realizing the goal of retaining cosmesis following radical removal of breast tumors. The purpose of the present study is to provide a clinical and pathological comparison of conventional (BCS) and oncoplastic (OPS) breast-conserving surgeries, supplemented by a subjective assessment of cosmesis and quality of life of patients, the first time on a Hungarian sample. The authors performed a retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data of 60 advanced oncoplastic and 60 conventional breast-conserving surgery cases, and following adjuvant radiotherapy, the authors also surveyed patients for cosmetic results and quality of life (EORTC BR23). Comparison of the results was performed by statistical methods. The two groups did not differ substantially in age, tumor location, breast size, type of axillary surgery (sentinel node biopsy vs. axillary lymphadenectomy), tumor grade and receptor status. Tumor size was significantly greater (p=0.0009), the rate of quadranectomies was higher (p=0.0032), metastases in the regional lymph nodes (p=0.0043) and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.0122) were more frequent in the OPS group. The duration of surgeries was longer (p<0.001), the weight of the specimens was greater (p=0.0308), the rate of completion surgeries due to microscopically positive surgical margins was significantly smaller (p=0.0306) in the OPS than in the BCS group. There was no difference between the two groups in the rate of complications and the time elapsed to the start of adjuvant treatment. The cosmetic outcome was clearly superior in the OPS group (p<0.001), and OPS patients had fewer arm, shoulder (p=0.0399), and chest pain (of the affected side) (p=0.0304), upper limb movements of the operated side were also better (p=0.006). The short follow-up period of the OPS group (mean 32.2 vs. 8.7 months in BCS and OPS, respectively) did not allow a meaningful assessment of oncologic endpoints. When compared to conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic surgery is suitable for microscopically radical tumor removal even in case of larger lesions and true quadranectomy with longer surgical time but lower rate of complications without delaying the adjuvant treatments and thus not increasing the cancer risk. OPS yields better cosmetic results and higher patient satisfaction compared to BCS. More experience and longer follow-up is needed for the assessment of local tumor control achieved by OPS.
肿瘤整形手术技术似乎适合实现乳腺肿瘤根治性切除后保留美观的目标。本研究的目的是首次在匈牙利样本中,对传统保乳手术(BCS)和肿瘤整形保乳手术(OPS)进行临床和病理比较,并对患者的美观和生活质量进行主观评估。作者对60例晚期肿瘤整形保乳手术病例和60例传统保乳手术病例的临床病理数据进行了回顾性评估,在辅助放疗后,作者还对患者的美容效果和生活质量进行了调查(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织BR23问卷)。通过统计学方法对结果进行比较。两组在年龄、肿瘤位置、乳房大小、腋窝手术类型(前哨淋巴结活检与腋窝淋巴结清扫)、肿瘤分级和受体状态方面无显著差异。肿瘤大小在OPS组显著更大(p = 0.0009),象限切除术的比例更高(p = 0.0032),区域淋巴结转移(p = 0.0043)和辅助化疗的使用(p = 0.0122)在OPS组更频繁。手术时间更长(p < 0.001),标本重量更大(p = 0.0308),因显微镜下手术切缘阳性导致的手术完成率在OPS组显著低于BCS组(p = 0.0306)。两组在并发症发生率和辅助治疗开始所经过的时间方面无差异。OPS组的美容效果明显更好(p < 0.001),OPS患者的手臂、肩部疼痛(p = 0.0399)和患侧胸痛(p = 0.0304)更少,手术侧上肢活动也更好(p = 0.006)。OPS组较短的随访期(BCS组和OPS组分别为平均8.7个月和32.2个月)不允许对肿瘤学终点进行有意义的评估。与传统保乳手术相比,肿瘤整形手术即使在病变较大且进行真正象限切除术的情况下,也适合显微镜下根治性切除肿瘤,手术时间更长,但并发症发生率更低,且不延迟辅助治疗,因此不会增加癌症风险。与BCS相比,OPS产生更好的美容效果和更高的患者满意度。需要更多经验和更长随访时间来评估OPS实现的局部肿瘤控制情况。