Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation

Purpose. Over recent decades, no consensus has yet been reached on the optimal approach to cosmetic evaluation following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The present study compared the strengths and weaknesses of the BCCT.core software with a 10-member panel from various backgrounds. Methods. Digita...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Max Hendrik Haloua, Nicole Marianna Alexandra Krekel, Gerrit Johannes Albertus Jacobs, Barbara Zonderhuis, Mark-Bram Bouman, Marlon Eugène Buncamper, Franciscus Bernardus Niessen, Henri Adolf Hubert Winters, Caroline Terwee, Sybren Meijer, Monique Petrousjka van den Tol
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2014-01-01
Series:International Journal of Breast Cancer
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/716860
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose. Over recent decades, no consensus has yet been reached on the optimal approach to cosmetic evaluation following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The present study compared the strengths and weaknesses of the BCCT.core software with a 10-member panel from various backgrounds. Methods. Digital photographs of 109 consecutive patients after BCT were evaluated for 7 items by a panel consisting of 2 breast surgeons, 2 residents, 2 laypersons, and 4 plastic surgeons. All photographs were objectively evaluated using the BCCT.core software (version 20), and an overall cosmetic outcome score was reached using a four-point Likert scale. Results. Based on the mean BCCT.core software score, 41% of all patients had fair or poor overall cosmetic results (10% poor), compared with 51% (14% poor) obtained with panel evaluation. Mean overall BCCT.core score and mean overall panel score substantially agreed (weighted kappa: 0.68). By contrast, analysis of the evaluation of scar tissue revealed large discrepancies between the BCCT.core software and the panel. The analysis of subgroups formed from different combinations of the panel members still showed substantial agreement with the BCCT.core software (range 0.64–0.69), independent of personal background. Conclusions. Although the analysis of scar tissue by the software shows room for improvement, the BCCT.core represents a valid and efficient alternative to panel evaluation.
ISSN:2090-3170
2090-3189