Eszter Kovács
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Eszter Kovács has a total of 23 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Zoltán Mátrai
Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
4 shared publications - Péter Kelemen
Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Ráth György Str. 7-9, 1122, Budapest, Hungary
3 shared publications - Tibor Kovács
Department of Breast Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
3 shared publications - Akos Sávolt
Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
2 shared publications - Csaba Polgár
Sugárterápiás Központ, Országos Onkológiai Intézet, Budapest, Hungary.
2 shared publications - Dávid Pukancsik
Department of Breast and Sarcoma Surgery, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- 1 February 2019
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Surgical Oncology
- Vol. 45 (2) , 103-109
Mapping of the functional anatomy of lymphatic drainage to the axilla in early breast cancer: A cohort study of 933 cases
- 1 February 2019
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Surgical Oncology
- Vol. 45 (2) , 103-109
Mapping of the functional anatomy of lymphatic drainage to the axilla in early breast cancer: A cohort study of 933 cases
- 1 December 2016
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Surgical Oncology
- Vol. 42 (12) , 1814-1820
Does breast screening offer a survival benefit? A retrospective comparative study of oncological outcomes of screen-detected and symptomatic early stage breast cancer cases
- 1 December 2016
- Published by Elsevier in European Journal of Surgical Oncology
- Vol. 42 (12) , 1814-1820
Does breast screening offer a survival benefit? A retrospective comparative study of oncological outcomes of screen-detected and symptomatic early stage breast cancer cases
- 20 February 2014
- Vol. 58 (2) , 116-27
[Oncoplastic versus conventional breast conserving surgery. A comparison of clinicopathological findings, cosmetic results and quality of life in 60 cases].
Oncoplastic surgical techniques seem to be suitable for realizing the goal of retaining cosmesis following radical removal of breast tumors. The purpose of the present study is to provide a clinical and pathological comparison of conventional (BCS) and oncoplastic (OPS) breast-conserving surgeries, supplemented by a subjective assessment of cosmesis and quality of life of patients, the first time on a Hungarian sample. The authors performed a retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data of 60 advanced oncoplastic and 60 conventional breast-conserving surgery cases, and following adjuvant radiotherapy, the authors also surveyed patients for cosmetic results and quality of life (EORTC BR23). Comparison of the results was performed by statistical methods. The two groups did not differ substantially in age, tumor location, breast size, type of axillary surgery (sentinel node biopsy vs. axillary lymphadenectomy), tumor grade and receptor status. Tumor size was significantly greater (p=0.0009), the rate of quadranectomies was higher (p=0.0032), metastases in the regional lymph nodes (p=0.0043) and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.0122) were more frequent in the OPS group. The duration of surgeries was longer (p<0.001), the weight of the specimens was greater (p=0.0308), the rate of completion surgeries due to microscopically positive surgical margins was significantly smaller (p=0.0306) in the OPS than in the BCS group. There was no difference between the two groups in the rate of complications and the time elapsed to the start of adjuvant treatment. The cosmetic outcome was clearly superior in the OPS group (p<0.001), and OPS patients had fewer arm, shoulder (p=0.0399), and chest pain (of the affected side) (p=0.0304), upper limb movements of the operated side were also better (p=0.006). The short follow-up period of the OPS group (mean 32.2 vs. 8.7 months in BCS and OPS, respectively) did not allow a meaningful assessment of oncologic endpoints. When compared to conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic surgery is suitable for microscopically radical tumor removal even in case of larger lesions and true quadranectomy with longer surgical time but lower rate of complications without delaying the adjuvant treatments and thus not increasing the cancer risk. OPS yields better cosmetic results and higher patient satisfaction compared to BCS. More experience and longer follow-up is needed for the assessment of local tumor control achieved by OPS.
- 20 February 2014
- Vol. 58 (2) , 116-27
[Oncoplastic versus conventional breast conserving surgery. A comparison of clinicopathological findings, cosmetic results and quality of life in 60 cases].
Oncoplastic surgical techniques seem to be suitable for realizing the goal of retaining cosmesis following radical removal of breast tumors. The purpose of the present study is to provide a clinical and pathological comparison of conventional (BCS) and oncoplastic (OPS) breast-conserving surgeries, supplemented by a subjective assessment of cosmesis and quality of life of patients, the first time on a Hungarian sample. The authors performed a retrospective assessment of clinicopathological data of 60 advanced oncoplastic and 60 conventional breast-conserving surgery cases, and following adjuvant radiotherapy, the authors also surveyed patients for cosmetic results and quality of life (EORTC BR23). Comparison of the results was performed by statistical methods. The two groups did not differ substantially in age, tumor location, breast size, type of axillary surgery (sentinel node biopsy vs. axillary lymphadenectomy), tumor grade and receptor status. Tumor size was significantly greater (p=0.0009), the rate of quadranectomies was higher (p=0.0032), metastases in the regional lymph nodes (p=0.0043) and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.0122) were more frequent in the OPS group. The duration of surgeries was longer (p<0.001), the weight of the specimens was greater (p=0.0308), the rate of completion surgeries due to microscopically positive surgical margins was significantly smaller (p=0.0306) in the OPS than in the BCS group. There was no difference between the two groups in the rate of complications and the time elapsed to the start of adjuvant treatment. The cosmetic outcome was clearly superior in the OPS group (p<0.001), and OPS patients had fewer arm, shoulder (p=0.0399), and chest pain (of the affected side) (p=0.0304), upper limb movements of the operated side were also better (p=0.006). The short follow-up period of the OPS group (mean 32.2 vs. 8.7 months in BCS and OPS, respectively) did not allow a meaningful assessment of oncologic endpoints. When compared to conventional breast conserving surgery, oncoplastic surgery is suitable for microscopically radical tumor removal even in case of larger lesions and true quadranectomy with longer surgical time but lower rate of complications without delaying the adjuvant treatments and thus not increasing the cancer risk. OPS yields better cosmetic results and higher patient satisfaction compared to BCS. More experience and longer follow-up is needed for the assessment of local tumor control achieved by OPS.