A prospective comparison of subjective and objective assessment of cosmetic outcomes following breast brachytherapy

Purpose: We evaluated agreement between subjective and objective methods of cosmesis scoring in an accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) cohort.Material and methods: Consecutive women treated with APBI using interstitial brachytherapy reported for clinical follow-up every 6 months.Single cross-sectional assessment of the breast cosmesis was done by a radiation oncologist (subjective method) using Harvard scale and by photographic assessment using BCCT.core(Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment.Cosmetic results, version 3.1) software (objective method) at 18-36 months post-APBI.The agreement between subjective and objective methods for the overall score as well as individual subjective/objective subdomains was computed using kappa statistics.ANOVA was used to test the correlation between objective indices and subjective subdomains.Results: The agreement between the subjective (physician) and objective assessment was good with a kappa of 0.673.Overall, 77 (98.7%) patients were satisfied with the overall outcomes of breast conservation therapy.The kappa agreement between physician and patient scoring was 0.457 (95% CI: 0.240-0.674).Among the subjective subdomains, location of the nipple areola complex (NAC) had good agreement with both the overall subjective and objective score, with the kappa of 0.778 and 0.547, respectively.In the objective indices, BCE (breast compliance evaluation), LBC (lower breast contour), and UNR (unilateral nipple retraction) correlated significantly with the subjective subdomains: location of the NAC, breast size, and shape (p < 0.05 for all indices).Conclusions: Good agreement exists for overall cosmetic outcomes measured by subjective and objective methods.Location of the NAC, breast size and shape are the most important parameters determining cosmetic outcomes irrespective of the method of assessment.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-SA

40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.