Abstract P1-09-08: Comparisons of aesthetic outcomes and prognosis of conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and breast conserving surgery plus immediate lipofilling in early breast cancer

Abstract Background: Conventional breast conserving surgery (CBCS) considered as a confined alternative to mastectomy could lead to potentially breast deformities. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) as well as breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus immediate lipofilling have been shown to be reliable techniques for maintaining the natural breast contours, however, few studies compared those three surgical options for oncological safety, complications and aesthetic outcomes in early breast cancer (EBC). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of BC patients who underwent BCS between January 2017 and December 2021 from The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. We included female patients who received BCS for unilateral stage 0-III BC. Those who had bilateral BC, incomplete surgical records, unfinished adjuvant therapy, multiple primary malignant tumors and lost to follow-up and were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed using the BREAST-Q Version 2.0. We utilized a multivariable linear regression model to identify clinical factors correlated with the BREAST-Q score, and the log-rank test and Cox regression models were used to compare the survival difference between groups. Results: Of 268 patients, 90 (33.6%) underwent CBCS, 53 (19.8%) underwent OBCS and 125 (46.6%) underwent BCS plus immediate lipofilling. Patients in OBCS and BCS plus immediate lipofilling groups were younger than those in CBCS group (mean age: 43.9yrs vs 49.1yrs, P=0.001 and 45.7yrs vs 49.1yrs, P=0.008). The largest tumor size and heaviest BCS specimen were observed in the OBCS group compared with CBCS (mean tumor size: 23.4mm vs 17.3mm, P&amp;lt; 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 36.5g, P&amp;lt; 0.001) and BCS plus immediate lipofilling group (mean tumor size: 23.4mm vs 17.4mm, P&amp;lt; 0.001 and median excised weight: 122.0g vs 37.0g, P&amp;lt; 0.001). It was balanced for pathological type, Ki-67, ER and PR expression between three groups. In the multivariable linear regression models, with the CBCS group as referent, either OBCS or BCS plus immediate lipofilling groups had a significantly higher score in satisfaction with breast (Estimate: 9.27, P=0.001 and Estimate: 13.08, P&amp;lt; 0.001) and psychosocial well-being (Estimate: 6.06, P=0.021 and Estimate: 9.34, P&amp;lt; 0.001). Additionally, sexual well-being was improved among patients receiving BCS plus immediate lipofilling (Estimate: 6.19, P=0.029). Nevertheless, patients in OBCS group harbored worse physical well-being compared with CBCS (Estimate: -15.89, P&amp;lt; 0.001). There was no significantly statistical difference among three groups on re-excision rate (P=0.721) and postoperative complications (P=0.663). After 37-month median follow-up, identical event-free survival (EFS) was revealed among three groups (HROBCS vs CBCS: 3.93; 95%CI, 0.78-19.81, P=0.098; HRBCS plus Lipofilling vs CBCS: 1.15, 95%CI, 0.28-4.67, P=0.847). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that OBCS as well as BCS plus immediate lipofilling shared equivalent oncological safety but better cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction when compared with CBCS for EBC patients, suggesting that further prospective randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm our findings. Citation Format: JH Ren, Yuanyuan Wang, Xiang Zhang, Kang Wang, Renxi Tang, Ling Yang, Junge Gong, Jiawei Xu, Qing Li, WM Zhu, Qiao Cheng, Guosheng Ren, Hongyuan Li. Comparisons of aesthetic outcomes and prognosis of conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and breast conserving surgery plus immediate lipofilling in early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-08.

Topic: Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Subfield: Cancer Research
Field: Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Domain: Life Sciences