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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| 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!
|
| _version_ | 1832560006166216704 |
|---|---|
| author | 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 |
| author_facet | 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 |
| author_sort | Max Hendrik Haloua |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e35cd896cf3243b28a9beafae5acbb7d |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-3170 2090-3189 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Breast Cancer |
| spelling | doaj-art-e35cd896cf3243b28a9beafae5acbb7d2025-02-03T01:28:49ZengWileyInternational Journal of Breast Cancer2090-31702090-31892014-01-01201410.1155/2014/716860716860Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel EvaluationMax Hendrik Haloua0Nicole Marianna Alexandra Krekel1Gerrit Johannes Albertus Jacobs2Barbara Zonderhuis3Mark-Bram Bouman4Marlon Eugène Buncamper5Franciscus Bernardus Niessen6Henri Adolf Hubert Winters7Caroline Terwee8Sybren Meijer9Monique Petrousjka van den Tol10Department of Surgical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Surgical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Surgical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Surgical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsDepartment of Surgical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsPurpose. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/716860 |
| spellingShingle | 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 Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation International Journal of Breast Cancer |
| title | Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation |
| title_full | Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation |
| title_fullStr | Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation |
| title_short | Cosmetic Outcome Assessment following Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Comparison between BCCT.core Software and Panel Evaluation |
| title_sort | cosmetic outcome assessment following breast conserving therapy a comparison between bcct core software and panel evaluation |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/716860 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maxhendrikhaloua cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT nicolemariannaalexandrakrekel cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT gerritjohannesalbertusjacobs cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT barbarazonderhuis cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT markbrambouman cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT marloneugenebuncamper cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT franciscusbernardusniessen cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT henriadolfhubertwinters cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT carolineterwee cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT sybrenmeijer cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation AT moniquepetrousjkavandentol cosmeticoutcomeassessmentfollowingbreastconservingtherapyacomparisonbetweenbcctcoresoftwareandpanelevaluation |