Journal of Contemporary Brachytherapy

Abstract

3/2019 vol. 11
Original paper

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

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
  3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
  4. Department of Biostatistics, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India
  5. Clinical Research Secretariat, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Parel, Mumbai, India
J Contemp Brachytherapy 2019; 11, 3: 207-214
Online publish date: 2019/06/16
View full text

Purpose

We evaluated agreement between of 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.

Share
without publication fees