PURPOSE: In this study we retrospectively analyzed local control, survival rate and late cosmetic results of @entity1 with early @entity0 receiving breast conserving therapy. @entity1 AND METHODS: All @entity1 (1984 through 1992) of the Department of Radio-Oncology (University of Heidelberg), who received breast conserving therapy consisting of conservative surgery followed by radiotherapy, were interviewed and asked to come. Subjective estimation of the cosmetic results of therapy was evaluated by means of a questionnaire. Cosmesis, circumferences and temperatures of different mammary regions were assessed and measured. Side effects and late sequelae were valued by the EORTC/RTOG-score. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time of 192 @entity1 (pT1: 71.9%, pT2: 28.1%) was 4.5 years (median: 4.0 years). 26.6% of them were nodal positive. Positive nodal status correlated with high @entity5 grading (p = 0.0001). Ten @entity1 developed distant @entity3 ; one of them subsequent to having suffered a loco-regional failure. Eight loco-regional failures occurred, 3 of them before radiotherapy (salvage). Following radiotherapy altogether 5 loco-regional failures (= 2.6%) were found; 3 @entity1 concerning were pre-, 2 postmenopausal. Three of these @entity1 died, in 1 case occurred distant @entity3 . Seventeen @entity1 died, 3 of them presenting loco-regional failure, 8 of them showing distant @entity3 . Sixty-four @entity1 were examined for cosmesis with the following result: a poor result was observed twice, a fair result 13 times, a good result 34 and an excellent result 15 times. Self-assessment was significantly better than observer's assessment. Third-degree late sequelae were found once, second-degree was seen 11 times, first-degree 38 times and no visible late sequelae were observed 14 times. The use of wedges was followed with borderline significance (p = 0.06) either by a better cosmesis and fewer late sequelae. Neither the type of surgery nor the width of the fields nor the quality of radiation (Co60 or 6 MVX) nor boost-application influenced the cosmetic result. Measured circumferences and distances showed no significant differences in the groups of the @entity1 with poor or fair and good or excellent cosmesis. The temperature of the seized and contralateral breast showed no significant difference as well. With increasing distance from primary therapy the cosmetic results deteriorated. CONCLUSION: Breast conserving therapy consisting of conservative surgery followed by radiotherapy causes predominantly excellent to good cosmetic results combined with an acceptable amount of late side effects. The decreased rate of good and excellent cosmetic long-term results is biological interesting and requires further studies.

[Cosmetic results of breast conserving therapy for XXXX . Treatment results from the Heidelberg Radiation Clinic in the years 1984 to 1992].

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'patients', 'PATIENTS'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor'] @entity0 :: ('MESH:D001943', 'Disease') :: ['breast cancer'] @entity3 :: ('MESH:D009362', 'Disease') :: ['metastasis', 'metastases']
@entity0 :: (MESH:D001943,Disease) :: ['breast carcinoma']
