Comparative outcomes of conventional versus endoscopic-assisted surgery for breast phyllodes tumors: a single center retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.4
Zilin Zhuang, Di Huang, Linbin Yang, Jiannan Wu, Liang Jin, Xun Li, Zhiyun Qian, Rong Lei, Xiaojun Li, Erwei Song, Yan Nie
{"title":"Comparative outcomes of conventional versus endoscopic-assisted surgery for breast phyllodes tumors: a single center retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Zilin Zhuang, Di Huang, Linbin Yang, Jiannan Wu, Liang Jin, Xun Li, Zhiyun Qian, Rong Lei, Xiaojun Li, Erwei Song, Yan Nie","doi":"10.21037/tbcr-2026-1-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) tend to grow rapidly and often present as large tumors. Consequently, conventional surgery (CS) typically leaves large and conspicuous scars on the breast. In contrast, endoscopic-assisted surgery (EAS) via the axillary approach offers smaller, more concealed incisions, leaving the breast surface unscarred. However, whether this technique can enhance aesthetic outcomes without increasing the risk of PTs recurrence remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the oncologic safety and cosmetic outcomes of EAS versus CS in patients with PTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with newly diagnosed PTs who received surgical treatment were included, and they were stratified into two groups: EAS group and CS group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline differences between two groups. Oncologic safety, cosmetic satisfaction, intraoperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared between patients underwent EAS and CS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 3:1 PSM, 200 patients were included in the final analysis (147 CS and 53 EAS). The median follow-up was 23.77 months. EAS was associated with a significantly longer operative time (83.77±26.81 <i>vs</i>. 73.44±34.66 min, P=0.01) but yielded superior cosmetic outcomes, as evidenced by higher BREAST-Q scores for breast satisfaction (76.81±9.15 <i>vs</i>. 69.21±9.64, P<0.001) and psychological well-being (91.16±6.69 <i>vs</i>. 85.17±11.71, P<0.001). Postoperative complications and intraoperative blood loss did not differ significantly. Oncologic outcomes were comparable between the groups, with similar 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS; 97.0% EAS <i>vs</i>. 93.4% CS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; 100% EAS <i>vs</i>. 97.5% CS), and overall survival (OS; 100% EAS <i>vs</i>. 98.3% CS).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this matched cohort study, EAS approved to be a safe and feasible substitute to CS for PTs, offering equivalent oncologic outcomes while significantly improving cosmetic satisfaction and psychological well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":101427,"journal":{"name":"Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer","volume":"7 ","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13458265/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tbcr-2026-1-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast phyllodes tumors (PTs) tend to grow rapidly and often present as large tumors. Consequently, conventional surgery (CS) typically leaves large and conspicuous scars on the breast. In contrast, endoscopic-assisted surgery (EAS) via the axillary approach offers smaller, more concealed incisions, leaving the breast surface unscarred. However, whether this technique can enhance aesthetic outcomes without increasing the risk of PTs recurrence remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the oncologic safety and cosmetic outcomes of EAS versus CS in patients with PTs.

Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed PTs who received surgical treatment were included, and they were stratified into two groups: EAS group and CS group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline differences between two groups. Oncologic safety, cosmetic satisfaction, intraoperative indicators, and postoperative complications were compared between patients underwent EAS and CS.

Results: After 3:1 PSM, 200 patients were included in the final analysis (147 CS and 53 EAS). The median follow-up was 23.77 months. EAS was associated with a significantly longer operative time (83.77±26.81 vs. 73.44±34.66 min, P=0.01) but yielded superior cosmetic outcomes, as evidenced by higher BREAST-Q scores for breast satisfaction (76.81±9.15 vs. 69.21±9.64, P<0.001) and psychological well-being (91.16±6.69 vs. 85.17±11.71, P<0.001). Postoperative complications and intraoperative blood loss did not differ significantly. Oncologic outcomes were comparable between the groups, with similar 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS; 97.0% EAS vs. 93.4% CS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS; 100% EAS vs. 97.5% CS), and overall survival (OS; 100% EAS vs. 98.3% CS).

Conclusions: In this matched cohort study, EAS approved to be a safe and feasible substitute to CS for PTs, offering equivalent oncologic outcomes while significantly improving cosmetic satisfaction and psychological well-being.

传统与内镜辅助手术治疗乳腺叶状瘤的比较结果:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。
背景:乳腺叶状肿瘤(PTs)生长迅速,常表现为较大的肿瘤。因此,传统手术(CS)通常会在乳房上留下大而明显的疤痕。相比之下,内窥镜辅助手术(EAS)通过腋窝入路提供更小,更隐蔽的切口,使乳房表面无疤痕。然而,这项技术是否能在不增加PTs复发风险的情况下提高美学效果仍不清楚。该研究旨在比较EAS与CS在PTs患者中的肿瘤学安全性和美容结果。方法:纳入手术治疗的新诊断PTs患者,分为EAS组和CS组。倾向评分匹配(PSM)用于平衡两组之间的基线差异。比较了EAS和CS患者的肿瘤安全性、美容满意度、术中指标和术后并发症。结果:经3:1 PSM后,200例患者纳入最终分析,其中CS 147例,EAS 53例。中位随访时间为23.77个月。EAS与较长的手术时间(83.77±26.81 vs. 73.44±34.66 min, P=0.01)相关,但具有较好的美容效果,乳房满意度(76.81±9.15 vs. 69.21±9.64,pv vs. 85.17±11.71,pv vs. 93.4% CS),远端无转移生存率(DMFS; 100% EAS vs. 97.5% CS)和总生存率(OS; 100% EAS vs. 98.3% CS)均高于breast - q评分。结论:在这项匹配的队列研究中,EAS被批准为一种安全可行的替代CS治疗PTs的方法,在提供相同的肿瘤预后的同时显著提高美容满意度和心理健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书