الفهرس 
AcknowledgementOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 166 |  |  |
| | | from | 166 | | |
Abstract
OBCS is increasingly becoming a part of breast cancer routine practice and most likely results in an improved cosmetic outcome. The level of evidence supporting OBCS oncological safety is low; however, well conducted level 3 studies report no poorer outcomes compared with BCT. It is likely that OBCS patients represent a significant number of patients who have avoided mastectomy, this should be considered when examining patient survival outcomes with attention to tumor biology. More evidence needs to be generated to support the oncological safety and improved aesthetic outcome. he aim of our study is to evaluate the oncologic safety and to evaluate the aesthetic results after different oncoplastic techniques for breast cancer management. Patient satisfaction to aesthetic outcome after BCT is high. Conventional resection provides less aesthetic outcome in appropriately selected patients. Oncoplastic resection enables BCT in patients with larger and multifocal tumours with favourable aesthetic outcome The contemporary goals of breast cancer treatment are not limited to cure but include maximizing quality of life. All breast cancer treatment has the potential to adversely affect breast appearance and cause morbidity due to deformity. Developing objective, quantifiable methods to assess breast appearance is important to understand the impact of deformity on patient quality of life, guide selection of current treatments, and make rational treatment advances. Aesthetics will always be an elusive outcome due to the variability of culture, ethnicity, and personal preferences. Nevertheless, the physical elements that define breast appearance do permit objective evaluation and may serve as tools to gain better control over aesthetic outcomes. Developing tools to more objectively assess the anatomic components of breast appearance will contribute to better evaluation of aesthetics. More research is needed to develop an evaluation method with high reliability and reproducibility that is also practical. A detailed subjective qualitative scale with standardized terminology would improve communication between reconstructive surgeons and radiation oncologists. Quantitative calculations based on standardized digital/digitized two dimensional photography could be a reliable and reproducible approach that takes advantage of existing, easy access technology. Three dimensional imaging has even greater potential, though more substantial development is needed. Conclusion: Analysis of these factors will obviously depend on the method used to evaluate results. If the evaluation method is not highly reproducible, correlation with involved factors will be variable between centers and as a consequence will lack the necessary impact, to be considered universal.