A systematic review of oncoplastic volume replacement breast surgery: oncological safety and cosmetic outcome

Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery allows higher volume excision to achieve oncological safety with minimal aesthetic compromise. The primary outcome of this study was to assess the oncological safety in the setting of volume replacement oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. The secondary objective was to assess cosmetic outcome.

A systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to explore the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery, with particular focus on volume replacement. Resection margin rates, re-excision rates, conversion to mastectomy rates, local and distant disease recurrence, volume replacement techniques, cosmetic outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed.

The search criteria identified 155 articles, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 2,497 patients with a mean age of 47.8 years (range 38.4-59.6 years), a body mass index of 24.3kg/m² (22.1-28.0kg/m²), with a mean follow-up of 37.1 months (6-125 months). A variety of volume replacement techniques were used, most commonly latissimus dorsi and chest wall perforator flaps. Whole mean pathological tumour size was 29.7mm (17-65mm) and mean specimen weight was 123.6g (46.5-220g). Mean re-excision rate was 7.2% and completion mastectomy rate was 2.3%. Locoregional and distant recurrence rate was 2.5% (0-8.1%) and 3.1% (0-14.6%), respectively. There were a variety of patient-reported outcome measures employed, with overall good to excellent outcomes.

This review demonstrates that volume replacement oncoplastic breast conserving surgery is a safe option in terms of re-excision, completion mastectomy rates, and local and distant recurrence. Available patient-related outcome measures and cosmetic assessment tend towards better outcomes compared with wide local excision and mastectomy. However, data are significantly limited, with a paucity of high-level evidence, and it is therefore necessary to be cautious regarding the strength and interpretation of data in this review. Further prospective studies are required on this subject.