Oncoplastic Breast Surgery versus Conservative Mastectomy in the Management of Large Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Surgical, Oncological, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Simple Summary The safety and efficacy of level II oncoplastic surgery (OPS2) is well-established in the treatment of invasive breast cancer, and most research suggests a benefit, compared to mastectomy, in terms of patient satisfaction and final breast cosmesis. However, very few studies address its use in the treatment of large DCIS, a condition with a unique clinical presentation, which often represents a surgical challenge, given the intraoperative difficulty in assessing disease margins. Our aim was to analyze the surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery for large DCIS, to assess its safety, efficacy and final cosmetic outcome. This is the first study on large DCIS to compare OPS2 with conservative mastectomy, the other option a surgeon can offer to these patients. It is also the first to include patient-reported outcomes, and does so by means of a standardized instrument such as BREAST-Q (c). Oncoplastic level II breast-conserving surgery (OPS2) allows for wider excisions than standard breast-conserving surgery, but the literature on this technique in the treatment of DCIS is scarce. This study compares OPS2 to conservative mastectomy (CM) in patients undergoing surgery for large DCIS. The clinical, radiological, surgical, and post-operative data of 147 patients who underwent either CM or OPS2 for large DCIS between 2007 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The surgical, oncological, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The surgical outcomes were similar, in terms of margin involvement (p = 0.211), complication rate (p = 0.827), and re-excision rate (p = 1). The rate of additional surgery for cosmetic optimization was significantly lower in the OPS2 group: only 1 (1.8%) patient required surgical adjustments versus 24 (26.4%) patients in the CM group (p < 0.001). The mean hospital stay was lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). The oncological outcomes did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.662). The PRO analysis showed better outcomes in the OPS2 group, which achieved statistical significance in the sexual well-being module (p = 0.015). Skin sensitivity loss was also significantly lower in the OPS2 group (p < 0.001). When feasible, OPS2 should be considered in the treatment of large DCIS, as it is safe and shows high levels of patient satisfaction.