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. PapanikolaouEmail author
  • C. Dimitrakakis
  • F. Zagouri
  • S. Marinopoulos
  • A. Giannos
  • E. Zografos
  • C. G. Zografos
  • D. Kritikou
  • A. Rodolakis
  • G. C. Zografos
  • D. Loutradis
Review Article



The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life after breast cancer surgery has motivated breast surgeons to develop oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPS). Training programs are still rare in most countries, and there is little standardization, which challenges the scientific evaluation of these techniques. This systematic review aims to assess oncological and cosmetic outcomes of OPS.


After a strict selection process with precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, oncologic and aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery were searched, using the MEDLINE database up to September 30th, 2017. Available published literature was classified in levels of evidence. After a thorough screening process, only studies with the best level of evidence were included on selection. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were not included for methodological reasons.


Titles and abstracts of 2.854 citations were identified and after screening 15 prospective studies including 1.391 patients were reviewed and scored in detail. Local relapse was found in 2.8% of cases with a wide range of follow-up (from 6 to 74 months). Close margins were retrieved in 11% of cases and positive margins in 9.4% of cases. Mastectomy was implemented in 6.9% of breast cancer patients to whom OPS was performed. Good cosmetic outcomes were detected in 90.2% of patients undergoing OPS, leaving open issues for who should perform cosmetic evaluation and which method should be used.


Tumor margins, mastectomy rates, and cosmetic outcomes of OPS have to be further improved by standardizing various aspects of OPS. Research efforts should focus on level I evidence assessing both oncological and aesthetic outcomes of OPS and survival rates.


Oncoplastic surgery Breast cancer Breast conservation Oncologic outcomes Aesthetic outcomes Cosmesis 



Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery


Breast conserving treatment


Breast conserving surgery


Randomized controlled trials


Ductal carcinoma in situ


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Miller KD, Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:252–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). World Health Organization, GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Accessed Dec 2016.
  4. 4.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Impact of a higher radiation dose on local control and survival in breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized boost versus no boost EORTC 22881-10882 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartelink H, Horiot JC, Poortmans PM, et al. Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1378–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, et al. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 1422–1429.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaviani A, Sodagari N, Sheikhbahaei S, et al. From radical mastectomy to breast-conserving therapy and oncoplastic breast surgery: a narrative review comparing oncological result, cosmetic outcome, quality of life, and health economy. ISRN Oncol. 2013;2013:742462.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg. 2003;237:26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huemer GM, Schrenk P, Moser F, et al. Oncoplastic techniques allow breast-conserving treatment in centrally located breast cancers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:390–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Association of Breast Surgery at BASO; Association of Breast Surgery at BAPRAS; Training Interface Group in Breast Surgery. Baildam A, Bishop H, Boland G, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery—a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33 Suppl 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morrow M. Minimally invasive surgery for breast cancer. BMJ. 2009;19(338):b557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rainsbury RM. Training and skills for breast surgeons in the new millennium. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:511–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baildam AD. Oncoplastic surgery of the breast. Br J Surg. 2002;89:532–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rew DA. Towards a scientific basis for oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:105–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W. An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Noguchi M, Saito Y, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A, Ohta N, Koyasaki N, et al. Breast deformity, its correction and assessment of breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18:111–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dixon JM, Venizelos B, Chan P. Latissimus dorsi miniflap: a new technique for extending breast conservation. Breast. 2002;11:58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rainsbury RM, Paramanathan N. Recent progress with breast conserving volume replacement using latissimus dorsi miniflaps in UK patients. Breast Cancer. 1998;5:139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raja MA, Straker VF, Rainsbury RM. Extending the role of breast-conserving surgery by immediate volume replacement. Br J Surg. 1997;84:101–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson BO, Masetti R, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic approaches to partial mastectomy: an overview of volume-displacement techniques. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nos C, Fitoussi A, Bourgeois D, Fourquet A, Salmon RJ, Klough KB. Conservative treatment of lower pole breast cancers by bilateral mammoplasty and radiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24:508–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rietjens M, Urban CA, Rey PC, Mazzarol G, Maisonneuve P, Garusi C, et al. Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery. Breast. 2007;16:387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine e levels of evidence, 2009. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
  26. 26.
    Meretoja TJ, Svarvar C, Jahkola TA. Outcome of oncoplastic breast surgery in 90 prospective patients. Am J Surg. 2010;200:224–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rusby JE, Paramanathan N, Laws SA, Rainsbury RM. Immediate latissimus dorsi miniflap volume replacement for partial mastectomy: use of intra-operative frozen sections to confirm negative margins. Am J Surg. 2008;196:512–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaviani A, Safavi A, Mohammadzadeh N, et al. Oncoplastic surgery in breast conservation: a prospective evaluation of the patients, techniques, and oncologic outcomes. Am J Surg. 2014;208:727–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Stallard S, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast. 2017;32:179–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Adimulam G, Challa VR, Dhar A, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Colombo PE, Lefévre M, Delmond L, et al. Oncoplastic resection of breast cancers located in the lower-inner or lower-outer quadrant with the modified McKissock mammaplasty technique. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:486–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Quality-of-life and self-esteem outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:811–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2011;20:407–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chan SWW, Cheung PSY, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010;34:1447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bong J, Parker J, Clapper R, et al. Clinical series of oncoplastic mastopexy to optimize cosmesis of large-volume resections for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yang JD, Bae SG, Chung HY, et al. The usefulness of oncoplastic volume displacement techniques in the superiorly located breast cancers for Korean patients with small to moderate-sized breasts. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;67:474–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Asgiersson KS, Rasheed T, McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Oncological and cosmetic outcomes of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:817–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von Minckwitz G, et al. Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an International Expert Panel. Cancer. 2010;116:1184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breastconserving therapy. Cancer. 2003;97:926–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gabka CJ, Bohmert H. Future prospects for reconstructive surgery in breast cancer. Semin Surg Oncol. 1996;12:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Planning and the use of therapeutic mammoplasty e Nottingham approach. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Wolfe A, Tsangaris TN, Pennanen MF. Experience with reduction mammaplasty combined with breast conservation therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Plast Recosntr Surg. 2003;111:1102–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McCulley SJ, Macmillan RD. Therapeutic mammaplasty e analysis of 50 consecutive cases. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58:902–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clough KB, Kaufman GJ, Nos C, et al. Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1375–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Zanini V, et al. Central small size breast cancer; how to overcome the problem of nipple and areola involvement. Eur J Cancer. 1993;29A:1093–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Group. Accessed 1 Apr 2013.
  51. 51.
    Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM. Mittal R. CONSORT compliance in surgical randomized trials: are we there yet? A systematic review. Ann Surg. 2013;258:872–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg. 2013;257:609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fitoussi AD, Berry MG, Fama F, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery for cancer: analysis of 540 consecutive cases [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:454–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chakravorty A, Shrestha AK, Sanmugalingam N, et al. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, 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. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:219–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2500–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Winters ZE, Afzal M, Balta V, Freeman J, Llewellyn-Bennett R, Rayter Z, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and their predictors at 2- and 3-year follow-up after immediate latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and adjuvant treatment. Br J Surg. 2016;103:524e36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weber WP, Soysal SD, Fulco I, et al. Standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. EJSO. 2017;43:1236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:1395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost versus no boost” trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:667–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, et al. A metaanalysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tenofsky PL, Dowell P, Topalovski T, Helmer SD. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207:398e402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1668–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weber WP, Soysal SD, El-Tamer M, et al. First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pukancsik D, Kelemen P, Ujhelyi M, et al. Objective decision making between conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy: an aesthetic and functional prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al. Recommendation for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(3):629–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. G. Papanikolaou
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Dimitrakakis
    • 1
  • F. Zagouri
    • 3
  • S. Marinopoulos
    • 1
  • A. Giannos
    • 1
  • E. Zografos
    • 2
  • C. G. Zografos
    • 2
  • D. Kritikou
    • 3
  • A. Rodolakis
    • 1
  • G. C. Zografos
    • 2
  • D. Loutradis
    • 1
  1. 1.Breast Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensGlyfadaGreece
  2. 2.1st Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations