OPBC Consensus Conference 2021 on September 02 from 1pm to 5pm(CET): Strategies for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in thesetting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy

Program
TIME(CET)

SessionSpeakerModerator

Discussants

Strategies for whole breast reconstruction with planned radiotherapy
13.00 –
Introduction andWalter P. Weber
13.10
Welcome13.10 –
View of the plastic
Andrea Pusic
Jörg Heil
13.25
surgeon13.25 –
Discussion
Jörg Heil
13.40

Susanne Dieroff Hay
Michael Gnant

13.40 –
13.55
13.55 –
14.10

View of the
oncoplastic surgeon
Discussion

Jana De Boniface

Kimberly Bowles
Cicero Urban

14.10 –
14.25
14.25 –
14.40

View of the radiation
oncologist
Discussion

Philip Poortmans

14.40 –
16.50

OPBC Consensus
Conference

Walter P. Weber
Jana De Boniface

16.50 –
17.00

Wrap up andConference close

Walter P. Weber
Jana De Boniface

Zoltan Matrai
Zoltan Matrai

Florian Fitzal
Florian Fitzal

Maria Katapodi
Lynda Wyld

1

Protocol
OPBC expert panel 2021
The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) was founded in March 2017 as global non-profit
organization and currently consists of 544 breast surgeons and 38 patient advocates from 79
countries. The OPBC is committed to bringing safe and effective oncoplastic breast surgery
to routine patient care, namely oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS), nipple-sparing(NSM) and skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction andaesthetic flat closure after conventional mastectomy. The global OPBC expert panel consistsof 82 oncologic, oncoplastic and plastic breast surgeons from private, public, community andacademic settings in 22 countries selected by evident expertise in breast cancer
management with a practice primarily dedicated to breast cancer (appendix 1A&E). In
addition, the panel includes eight patients from five countries with longtime experience andestablished international reputation as patient advocates (appendix 1C). Finally, the 2021
OPBC panel further contains six radiation oncologists who were invited based on scientificachievement and international standing (appendix 1D).
Selection of topic
The 2018 OPBC consensus conference revealed major heterogeneity in whole breastreconstruction practice after NSM/SSM when radiotherapy is planned, and a majority of thepanel agreed that there is a need for standardization of type and timing of reconstruction in
the setting of adjuvant radiotherapy (Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Dec;172(3):523-537.).
The 2019 OPBC consensus conference ranked the type and timing of reconstruction in thesetting of adjuvant radiotherapy as the two most important of a total of 38 knowledge gaps in
the field (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Aug;21(8):e375-e385.)
Aim
The OPBC plans to address relevant questions about type and timing of mastectomy andwhole breast reconstruction with planned radiotherapy and provide expert panel consensus
recommendations that define best OPBC practices regarding indications, contraindications,
surgical technique and outcome assessment.
Development of questionnaire
The predefined protocol of the conference will be published on the OPBC website andcontinuously updated. The identification of the questions for the conference will follow thispre-specified protocol: All relevant questions that have been addressed during the OPBC
2018 conference on NSM/SSM and immediate reconstruction will be asked again to assess2changes over time based on new evidence that became available in the meantime. The two
co-chairs will add key questions to the list based on their expert opinion. This preliminary setof questions will be further refined by the OPBC study group and two dedicated patientadvocates. Thereafter, the list will be sent to the entire OPBC community (544 breast
surgeons and 38 patient advocates from 79 countries) and the six panel radiation oncologists
to give feedback, as well as report additional questions. The organizers will adjust thequestions according to feedback from the OPBC community and refine the list by iterative
consultation with the panelists over the months preceding the conference.
We will purposefully refrain from using a systematic literature search as basis forquestionnaire development because we want the OPBC to identify and address questions
that are relevant in clinical practice irrespective of available evidence to inform treatment. In
parallel to questionnaire development, however, two members of staff (Elisabeth Kappos andNadia Maggi) will independently perform an specific search in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase
and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from 2000-2021 (searchterms "mastectomy, subcutaneous" OR "mastectomy" AND "subcutaneous" OR"subcutaneous mastectomy" OR "nipple" AND "sparing" AND "mastectomy" OR "nipple
sparing mastectomy" OR “breast reconstruction” OR whole-breast reconstruction” OR “breastreconstructive surgery” OR autologous breast reconstruction” OR “implant-based breastreconstruction” OR “post-mastectomy radiotherapy OR “irradiation” OR “radiotherapy” OR“breast reconstruction algorithm” OR “PMRT reconstruction” OR “PMRT breastreconstruction” OR “breast reconstruction algorithm radiation”). Their review of all abstracts
and full texts of relevant articles will be used to finalize the questionnaire and help to prepare
the chairs and moderators for the consensus conference. After the conference, it will be usedas basis to write the manuscript.
Pre-voting on all questions will be performed prior to conference on Sept 02 for threereasons: 1. To serve as back-up in case of technical failure during live voting, 2. To provide
opportunity to participate for panelists who cannot attend live voting, 3. To provide
opportunity for all expert representatives to review the voting results on August 16 and define
the exact voting agenda for the consensus conference. Live voting during the consensus
conference may cover all questions again or focus on specific questions where noconsensus was reached at pre-voting or where voting results should be endorsed. Results ofpre-voting will be shown to panel and audience for the first time during conference on Sept
02 to allow spontaneous discussion by panelists. Two members of staff (Nadia Maggi andFabienne Schwab) will document the discussion in written, which will also be recorded.
There will be three types of questions: Firstly, the OPBC will address prevalent questions inclinical practice with or without expected controversy to assess their relevance and seek3

consensus on the impact of post-mastectomy radiotherapy on various aspects ofmastectomy and breast reconstruction; secondly, the OPBC will address questions in thefield of PMRT -outside of the specific expertise of most panelists- to evaluate the opinion andknowledge of the OPBC expert panel in this closely related field; thirdly -and mostimportantly- the OPBC will address relevant questions to guide clinical practice formastectomy and breast reconstruction in the context of post-mastectomy radiotherapy.
Timelines:

Consensus conference
The 2021 OPBC consensus conference on 02 September 2021 will be held fully virtually forthe first time. During the meeting, three panel members will present their view as plastic
surgeon (Andrea Pusic), oncoplastic surgeon (Jana de Boniface) and radiation oncologist(Philip Poortmans), followed by an interactive discussion using Pigeonhole Live technology.
In the second half, the questions and corresponding results of pre-voting will be presented by
pre-specified panelists, followed by live voting on selected questions to the extent technicallyfeasible by the OPBC panelists and members who are present during the consensus
conference. Results of live voting will be displayed by OPBC panelists versus members tofacilitate discussion. Re-voting will be performed whenever indicated and technically feasible.
For most statements or questions, voting will be in the format yes, no or abstain, but for aminority, the single most appropriate answer will be selected from the list of options. Simple
majority will be defined by agreement among 51-75% of the panelists and consensus by4

agreement above 75%. Abstaining will be recommended if panel members have conflict ofinterest or feel that the question was not clear or outside of their expertise, or that the correct
answer was missing.
ReportThe questions, answers and discussions will be brought into context with current evidence
from the literature in the form of this report. For this purpose, the specific literature searchthat was performed for development of the questionnaire will be considered by the chairs andexpert representatives, who selectively include additional references cited in thosepublications and articles that will be identified through searches of their own files. The reportwill be circulated among all 96 panelists in an iterative process until agreement will bereached on the wording for each question, which will convey the strength of panel support foreach recommendation. Voting results will be shown graphically and as exact numbers.

Protocol originally published on OPBC website on 08 June 2021
Protocol amendments
02 July 2021:
Consensus conference
In the second half, the questions and corresponding results of pre-voting will be presented by
pre-specified panelists, followed by live voting on selected questions to the extent technicallyfeasible by the OPBC panelists and members who are present during the consensus
conference. Results of live voting will be displayed by OPBC panelists versus members tofacilitate discussion. Re-voting will be performed whenever indicated and technically feasible.

5Appendix 1A: Expert representatives:Jana

de Boniface (co-chair)

SwedenWalter Paul

Weber (co-chair)

Switzerland

Kimberly

Bowles (patient advocate)

United States of America

SusanneDieroff Hay (patient advocate)

SwedenZoltanMatrai (breast surgeon)

Hungary

FlorianFitzal (breast surgeon)

Austria

Jörg

Heil (breast surgeon)

Germany

Appendix 1B: Staff
Nadia Maggi (literature review and documentation of discussion)
Elisabeth Kappos (literature review)
Fabienne Schwab (documentation of discussion)
Liliana Castrezana (documentation)

Appendix 1C: Invited panelists - PATIENT ADVOCATES
Kimberly

BowlesUnited States of America

SilviaEss

Switzerland

Patricia

Fairbrother

United Kingdom

RosineMucklow

Switzerland

Maria

Katapodi

Switzerland

Jane

Shaw

Switzerland

SusanneDieroff Hay

SwedenLarisaAragonSwitzerland

Appendix 1D: Invited panelists – RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS
PhilipPoortmans

Belgium

DanielaKauer-Dorner

Austria6

FrankZimmermann

Switzerland

Günther

GruberSwitzerland

Pelagia

Tsoutsou

Switzerland

DanielZwahlen

Switzerland

Appendix 1E: Invited panelists - SURGEONS
EduardoGonzalez

Argentina

Elisabeth

Elder

Australia

Melanie

WalkerAustralia

James

FrenchAustralia

FlorianFitzalAustria

MichaelGnant

Austria

RupertKollerAustria

Vesna

Bjelic-Radisic

Austria

RolandReitsamer

AustriaPeter

Schrenk

Austria

Regis ResendePaulinelli

BrazilJorge

BiazusBrazil

Cicero

Urban

BrazilFabricio

BrenelliBrazilTulin

Cil

CanadaLashanPeirisCanadaXiangjin

Chen

China

Anqin

Zhang

China

Qiang

Sun

China

Kunwei

Shen

China

AshrafShaomaEgypt

Sarianna

Joukainen

FinlandUlla

Karhunen-Enckell

Finland7

Susanna

Kauhanen

Finland

Jean Marc

Piat

FranceFabienReyal

FranceJörg

Heil

Germany

Jens-Uwe

Blohmer

Germany

UlrichKneserGermany

Juergen

Hoffmann

Germany

SherkoKuemmelGermany

AndreeFaridiGermany

Christoph

Heitmann

GermanyLaszloRomicsGreat Britain

Michalis

KontosGreeceKonstantinos

Kontzoglou

GreeceChristina

Tampaki Ekaterini

GreeceZoltanMatrai

Hungary

MitchelBarry

Ireland

Moshe

CarmonIsraelTanir

AllweisIsraelTal

Hadar

IsraelOreste Davide

Gentilini

Italy

Giuseppe

Catanuto

Italy

Viviana

Galimberti

Italy

Carlos Alberto

Garcia-Etienne

ItalyMarie-Jeanne

Vrancken Peeters

Netherlands

Hinne

Rakhorst

Netherlands

Emiel

Rutgers

Netherlands

Linetta

KoppertNetherlands

NicolePosch

Netherlands

MarijeHoornweg

Netherlands

8

Ricardo

Abed

Paraguay

Pedro

Gouveia

Portugal

Maria-Joao

CardosoPortugal

Isabel

Rubio

Spain

Jana

de Boniface

SwedenJakob

Lagergren

SwedenTor

Svensjö

SwedenWalterWeber

Switzerland

Yves

HarderSwitzerland

Nik

HauserSwitzerland

ChristianKurzederSwitzerland

Christoph

Tausch

Switzerland

Jian

FarhadiSwitzerland

MartinHaug

Switzerland

AndreasGünthert

Switzerland

SusanneBucherSwitzerland

MichaelKnauerSwitzerland

Peter

DubskySwitzerland

Visnu

Lohsiriwat

ThailandBahadir M.

Gulluoglu

TurkeyHasan

Karanlik

TurkeyGuldeniz

Karadeniz Cakmak

TurkeyAtakanSezer

TurkeyTibor

KovacsUnited Kingdom

Lynda

Wyld

United Kingdom

Shelley

PotterUnited Kingdom

Anne

Tansley

United Kingdom

Mahmoud

El-Tamer

United States of America

Tari

King

United States of America

9MonicaMorrow

United States of America

AndreaPusic

United States of America

Virgilio

Sacchini

United States of America

AlbertLoskenUnited States of America

10Appendix 2: Questionnaire for 2021 OPBC consensus conference
Abbreviations used in questionnaire: NSM (nipple-sparing mastectomy), PMRT (postmastectomy radiotherapy), BR (breast reconstruction), IBBR (implant-based breastreconstruction)

Nipple-/ skin-sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM)

1.

Planned or expected PMRT is a contraindication to nipple preservation (vote with
yes, no or abstain)

2.

Planned or expected PMRT may have an impact on the choice of incision for NSM(vote with yes, no or abstain)3.

In a woman with cup size ≥ C and ptosis ≥ grade 2 and planned or expected PMRT,
but no other obvious risk factors for nipple necrosis and no signs of ischemia
during surgery, would you be willing to offer NSM with use of (vote separately for ad with yes, no or abstain)
a. Skin reduction and nipple-areola pedicles independently from breast reconstruction
techniqueb. Skin reduction and nipple-areola pedicles only when autologous breast reconstructionis plannedc. Skin reduction and free nipple graftingd. Without skin reduction

4.

In the setting of planned or expected PMRT, NSM should be performed less radicallyin terms of conservation of anatomic structures and thickness of skin and nipple
flaps (vote with yes, no or abstain)

5.

PMRT can be associated with clinically relevant hypopigmentation of the nippleareola complex and reduction of areola diameter (vote with yes, no or abstain)

Type of breast reconstruction

6. PMRT increases the overall risk of complications (defined as an adverse
postoperative, surgery-related event requiring additional treatment) after all typesof IBBR (one stage, two stage, pre-pectoral, sub-pectoral, with synthetic mesh,with biologic mesh, without mesh) (vote with yes, no or abstain)11

7. PMRT increases the overall risk of complications (defined as an adverse
postoperative, surgery-related event requiring additional treatment) after thefollowing type of autologous reconstruction (vote with yes, no or abstain for a-c)a. Immediate autologous reconstruction
b. Immediate autologous reconstruction combined with implantc. Delayed-immediate autologous reconstruction: first surgery (expander or
implant)
d. Delayed-immediate autologous reconstruction: second surgery(autologous reconstruction)e. Delayed autologous reconstruction

8.

Among patients who are expected to receive PMRT, the overall risk ofcomplications associated with immediate autologous reconstruction compared to
IBBR is (please choose one of the following answers)
a. Higher
b. Lowerc. Comparable
d. Abstain

9.

Outside of clinical trials, planned or expected PMRT is a contraindication to (voteseparately for a-h with yes, no or abstain)a. All types of immediate breast reconstruction
b. Immediate autologous breast reconstruction
c. Immediate autologous breast reconstruction combined with an implant/expanderd. Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with a biologic or synthetic meshe. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with a biologic or synthetic meshf. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR without a biologic or synthetic meshg. Two-stage IBBR (sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant)h. Delayed-immediate

breastreconstruction(expander/implanttoautologous

reconstruction)

10. In case of expected PMRT and planned autologous reconstruction, your preferred
method -provided that patient preference and anatomical preconditions are met- is(please choose one of the following answers)
a. Immediate autologous reconstruction
12

b. Immediate reconstruction as combination of an implant and a flap
c. Delayed-immediate reconstruction (expander/implant to autologous reconstruction after
PMRT)
d. Delayed autologous reconstruction after PMRTe. Abstain

11. In case of expected PMRT and planned IBBR, your preferred method -provided thatpatient preference and anatomical preconditions are met- is (please choose one of
the following answers)
a. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshb. Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshc. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshd. Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshe. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with biologic meshf.

immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with biologic meshg. Two-stage IBBR (pre- or sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant, with or without useof any mesh at any stage)h.

Abstain

12. In the setting of PMRT, pre-pectoral IBBR is associated with higher risk ofcomplications and failure rates than sub-pectoral IBBR (please choose yes, no or
abstain)

13. Which of the following types of reconstruction do you recommend -provided thatpatient preference and anatomical preconditions are met- to achieve the lowest
overall risk of complications when PMRT is expected (please choose one of thefollowing answers)
a. Immediate autologous reconstruction
b. Delayed-immediate reconstruction (expander/implant to autologous reconstruction
after PMRT)
c. Delayed autologous reconstruction after PMRT
d. Immediate reconstruction with combination of an implant and a flap
e. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshf.

Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshg. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshh. Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshi.

Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with biologic mesh13

j.

Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with biologic meshk. Two-stage IBBR (pre- or sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant, with or without
use of mesh at any stage) with irradiation of expanderl.

Two-stage IBBR (pre- or sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant, with or without
use of any mesh at any stage) with irradiation of final implant

m. Abstain
14. Which of the following types of reconstruction do you recommend -provided thatpatient preference and anatomical preconditions are met- to achieve the best
aesthetic results when PMRT is planned or expected (please choose one of thefollowing answers)
a. Immediate autologous reconstruction
b. Delayed-immediate reconstruction (expander/implant to autologous reconstruction
after PMRT)
c. Delayed autologous reconstruction after PMRT
d. Immediate reconstruction with combination of an implant and a flap
e. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshf.

Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR without synthetic or biologic meshg. Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshh. Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with synthetic meshi.

Immediate one-stage pre-pectoral IBBR with biologic meshj.

Immediate one-stage sub-pectoral IBBR with biologic meshk. Two-stage IBBR (pre- or sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant, with or without
use of any mesh at any stage) with irradiation of expanderl.

Two-stage IBBR (pre- or sub-pectoral expander to definitive implant, with or without
use of any mesh at any stage) with irradiation of final implant

m. Abstain
Timing of breast reconstruction

15. Optimal timing of delayed autologous reconstruction in women with rapid skinhealing following PMRT (please choose one of the following answers)a.

A minimum of 12 months after end of PMRTb.

A minimum of 6 months after end of PMRTc.

A minimum of 3 months after end of PMRTd.

≤3 months after end of PMRTe.

Abstain14

16. In your clinical practice, are there established indications for delayed IBBR after
PMRT? (please vote yes, no or abstain)

17. If you voted yes to the previous question (all others please abstain): Whichstrategies do you recommend to reduce complications after IBBR following PMRT
(please vote with yes, no or abstain for each one)a. Highly cohesive implants
b. Nanotextured implantsc. Polyurethane implants
d. Use of synthetic meshe. Use of biologic meshf.

Pre-pectoral IBBR

g. Sub-pectoral IBBR
h. Fat grafting
18. Optimal timing of two stage IBBR in women receiving PMRT without adjuvant
chemotherapy (please choose one of the following answers)
a. Irradiation of tissue expanders
b. Irradiation of permanent implants
19. Optimal timing of two stage IBBR in women receiving PMRT with adjuvant
chemotherapy (please choose one of the following answers)
a. Irradiation of tissue expanders
b. Irradiation of permanent implants

20. Optimal timing of change to implant after PMRT to tissue expander in women with
rapid skin healing following PMRT (please choose one of the following answers)a.

A minimum of 12 months after end of PMRTb.

A minimum of 6 months after end of PMRTc.

A minimum of 3 months after end of PMRTd. ≤3 months after end of PMRTe.

Abstain

21. In your clinical practice, are there established indications for the use ofneoadjuvant radiotherapy before mastectomy and immediate BR? (vote with yes,no or abstain)
15

Special considerations

22. Indications for breast reconstruction in the setting of PMRT have been broadened
over the past decades (vote with yes, no or abstain)

23. Do you recommend fat grafting to address contour deformities or volume
deficiency at any time point during or after NSM/SSM and immediate autologous
BR followed by PMRT? (please vote with yes, no or abstain)

24. Do you recommend fat grafting to address contour deformities, implant rippling orvolume deficiency at any time point during or after NSM/SSM and immediate IBBR
followed by PMRT? (please vote with yes, no or abstain)

25. If you voted yes to the previous question (all others abstain): Optimal timing of fat
grafting after NSM/SSM and immediate IBBR followed by PMRT? (please choose oneof the following answers)
a. A minimum of 12 months after end of PMRTb.

A minimum of 6 months after end of PMRTc.

A minimum of 3 months after end of PMRTd. ≤3 months after end of PMRTe. Abstain

26. Poor

qualityofavailable

evidence

does

not

allow

evidence-based

recommendations for type and timing of breast reconstruction in the setting of
PMRT (please vote with yes, no or abstain)

27. Complications and reconstruction outcomes after NSM/SSM and IBBR should beprospectively evaluated to systematically optimize surgical and radiotherapeutic
approaches (please vote with yes, no or abstain)

28. Patients undergoing IBBR must give informed consent to specifically accept thepossibility of increased risk of complications due to planned PMRT (please vote
yes, no or abstain)16

29. Nuances in PMRT technique, such as the use of a bolus or boost, radiotherapy
modality, fractionation, and nodal target volumes, are all important in determining
the final aesthetic outcome after immediate BR (please vote with yes, no or abstain)
30. In the setting of planned or expected PMRT, the following outcomes andassessment tools are recommendable after NSM/SSM in clinical practice (voteseparately for a-e with yes, no or abstain)
a. Pre- and postoperative photographs
b. Patient-reported outcomesc. All or selected scales of BREAST-Q
d. All or selected scales of EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23
e. All or selected scales of BRECON-31
31. In the setting of planned or expected PMRT, which of the following measures doyou recommend most strongly for use in all future studies that involve patientreported outcomes? (please choose one of the following answers)
a. All or selected scales of BREAST-Q
b. All or selected scales of EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23
c. All or selected scales of BRECON-31
d. None of the above
e. Abstain

Post-mastectomy radiotherapy
The final set of questions assesses the opinion and knowledge of the 2021 OPBC panel on
the impact of immediate BR on delivery, safety and effectiveness of PMRT.

32. Immediate BR has the potential to affect oncologic outcomes by delaying
adjuvant therapy due to complications (vote with yes, no or abstain)

33. In general, irrespective of the availability of modern radiotherapy techniques,
immediate BR may result in unfavorable compromises between target coverageand normal tissue dose compared to no reconstruction (vote with yes, no or
abstain)

34. Irrespective of the availability of modern radiotherapy techniques, type of
immediate BR may affect the effectiveness of PMRT (vote with yes, no or abstain)17

35. Irrespective of the availability of modern radiotherapy techniques, type of
immediate BR may affect the overall risk of complications after PMRT (vote with
yes, no or abstain)

36. When unilateral one stage IBBR is performed in your clinical practice, the tissue
expander is fully expanded before start of PMRT (please vote yes, no or abstain)

37. Bilateral implants may hinder PMRT planning and may diminish the quality of
PMRT delivery (vote with yes, no or abstain)

38. When bilateral two stage IBBR is performed in your clinical practice, thecontralateral tissue expander is deflated to avoid the need for compromises
during PMRT (vote with yes, no or abstain)

18

Appendix 3: Questionnaires to assess characteristics of OPBC panelists

Consensus conference on knowledge gaps in oncoplastic surgery
PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM

PATIENT ADVOCATES
Name (optional): _________________________________________________________________
Middle Name (optional): __________________________________________________________
Surname (optional): ______________________________________________________________
Affiliation (if applicable): __________________________________________________________
Gender: Female 

Male 

Year of diagnosis: ________________________________________________________

Surgical procedure: Breast conserving surgery
 Mastectomy without reconstruction
 Mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction
 Mastectomy with reconstruction using your own body tissue
 No surgical treatment
 I prefer not to disclose this information

19

Consensus conference on knowledge gaps in oncoplastic surgery
PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM

SURGEONS
Name: __________________________________________________________________________
Middle Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Surname: ________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Board Certificate: General Surgery 

Gynecology 

Plastic Surgery Years of Experience: ______________________________________________________________
Estimated Number of Breast Surgery Procedures Performed or Assisted in 2020:
0-20 

20-50 Gender: Female 

50-100 

100+ 

Male 

Type of Breast Center: Academic  Public  Private 20

2021 Consensus conference
PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM

Radiation Oncologists
Name: __________________________________________________________________________
Middle Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Surname: ________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Years of Experience: ______________________________________________________________
Estimated number of patients with breast cancer treated in 2020:
0-20 

20-50 Gender: Female 

50-100 

100+ 

Male 

Type of Breast Center: Academic  Public  Private  Not applicable 21