An updated systematic review of esthetic grading tools in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
We ascertained whether a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction had been developed and widely adopted since the last published systematic review on the topic from 2015.Methods
We performed a systematic review identifying all studies using a grading tool to assess breast reconstruction, using search terms associated with all types of breast surgery and outcomes research. Articles were assessed for patient number, validated scale use, assessor type and training, assessor blinding, assessment method, scoring system type, type and timing of reconstruction, and usage of corroborating scales.Results
Of 2809 articles screened, 148 met the criteria. Only 3 used a validated tool, the Esthetic Items Scale. Most used study-only tools (n = 111) or unvalidated tools (n = 28). The most used unvalidated tool was the Garbay/Lowery 5-subscale rubric. Unanchored Likert scales were the most common subjective tool; two-dimensional images were the most used medium. Surgeons, patients, and nurses were the most common assessors. Twenty percent of studies used corroborating scales.Conclusions
In the absence of a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction, researchers continue to rely on unvalidated scales. The only validated scale available is used infrequently and only validated among physicians. A validated, reliable, simple grading tool with clinical and scholastic relevance is needed.
SUBMITTER: Stern C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10006367 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An updated systematic review of esthetic grading tools in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.
Stern Carrie C Kim Leslie N LN Plotsker Ethan E Boyce Lindsay L Dayan Joseph J Nelson Jonas A JA
Journal of surgical oncology 20230103 5
<h4>Background and objectives</h4>We ascertained whether a validated esthetic grading tool for breast reconstruction had been developed and widely adopted since the last published systematic review on the topic from 2015.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review identifying all studies using a grading tool to assess breast reconstruction, using search terms associated with all types of breast surgery and outcomes research. Articles were assessed for patient number, validated scale use, as ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2 -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects.ResultsFifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR.ConclusionsDelayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR.Lay summeryOncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.
| S-EPMC9546326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUp to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences.ObjectivesTo identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction.Design, setting, and participantsThis web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry.Main outcomes and measuresRelative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated.ResultsOverall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115).Conclusions and relevanceThis study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.
| S-EPMC10535024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is growing interest in the potential use of autologous fat grafting (AFG) for the purposes of breast reconstruction. However, concerns have been raised regarding the technique's clinical effectiveness, safety and interference with screening mammography. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the oncological, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient reported, process and radiological outcomes for AFG.Methods and analysisAll original studies, including randomised controlled trials, cohorts studies, case-control studies, case series and case reports involving women undergoing breast reconstruction. All AFG techniques performed for the purposes of reconstruction in the postmastectomy or breast conserving surgery setting will be considered. Outcomes are defined within this protocol along; oncological, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient reported, process and radiological domains. The search strategy has been devised to find papers about 'fat grafting and breast reconstruction' and is outlined within the body of this protocol. The full search strategy is outlined within the body of the protocol. The following electronic databases will be searched from 1 January 1986 to 6 June 2013: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, UpToDate.com, NHS Evidence and the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Grey literature searches will also be conducted as detailed in our review protocol. Eligibility assessment occurred in two stages, title and abstract screening and then full text assessment. Data were extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences in the fields of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery and at more general surgical and methodological conferences. It will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review findings will be disseminated directly to the appropriate audiences of surgeons and societies through email and other modes of communication. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy.Protocol registrationPROSPERO-National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42013005254).
| S-EPMC3808755 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10943514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast reconstruction is the mainstay treatment choice for patients subjected to a mastectomy. Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is deemed to be a promising alternative to subpectoral reconstruction. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is necessary for locoregional recurrence control and to improve the disease-free survival rate in locally advanced breast cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to reveal the surgical, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes of prepectoral IBBR after PMRT.MethodsAn extensive literature search was performed from inception to March 28, 2022. All clinical studies that included patients who were subjected to prepectoral IBBR and PMRT were included. Studies that included patients who received radiation therapy before prepectoral IBBR were excluded.ResultsThis systematic review included six articles encompassing 1234 reconstructed breasts. Of them, 391 breasts were subjected to PMRT, while 843 breasts were not subjected. Irradiated breasts were more susceptible to develop wound infection (RR 2.49; 95% 1.43, 4.35; P = 0.001) and capsular contracture (RR 5.17; 95% 1.93, 13.80; P = 0.001) than the non-irradiated breasts. Furthermore, irradiated breasts were more vulnerable to losing implants (RR 2.89; 95% 1.30, 6.39; P = 0.009) than the non-irradiated breast. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the risk of implant extrusion (RR 1.88; 95% 0.20, 17.63; P = 0.58).ConclusionsPatients with prepectorally IBBR and PMRT were more vulnerable to developing poor outcomes. This included a higher risk of breast-related and implant-related adverse events.Level of evidence iiiThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
| S-EPMC9945051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpecific measures tailored to the properties of individual procedures will ensure the appropriate evaluation of quality. Because postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is becoming increasingly common, a review of the literature is timely to identify potential breast reconstruction-specific measures that can be applied by institutions and national healthcare organizations to improve quality.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for studies examining the quality of care for patients undergoing PMBR. Data extracted from the articles include basic study characteristics, the number of quality metrics, type of quality metric (defined by Donabedian model), and the domain of quality (defined by the National Academy of Medicine).ResultsA total of 2,158 articles were identified in the initial search, and 440 studies were included for data extraction. The most common type of quality measure was outcome measures (91%), and the least common measure was structure measures (1%). The most common metrics were operative time (41%), hospital type (28%), and aspects of the patient-provider interactions (20%). Additionally, we found that timeliness and equity were least common among the 6 National Academy of Medicine domains.ConclusionsWe identified metrics utilized in the PMBR, some of which can be further investigated through high-level evidence studies and incorporated into policy. Because many factors influence surgical outcomes and breast reconstruction is driven by patient preferences, an inclusion of structure, process, and outcome metrics will help improve care for this patient population. Moreover, nonpunitive initiatives, specifically quality collaboratives, may provide an avenue to improve care quality without compromising patient safety.
| S-EPMC7159953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWomen of color with breast cancer are less likely to undergo post-mastectomy reconstruction compared with White women, but it is unclear whether their perioperative outcomes are worse. The goal of this study was to investigate differences in preoperative comorbidities and postoperative complications by race/ethnicity among women with breast cancer undergoing postmastectomy reconstruction.Study designData were collected from the National Inpatient Sample database of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 2012 to 2016. Patient demographics, types of reconstruction, comorbid conditions, Charlson-Deyo Combined Comorbidity (CDCC) scores, length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications were abstracted. Multivariate linear and logistic regression were performed to model LOS and likelihood of postoperative complications, respectively.ResultsCompared with White women (n = 19,730), Black women (n = 3,201) underwent autologous reconstruction more frequently (40.7% vs 28.3%), had more perioperative comorbidities (eg diabetes: 12.9% vs 5.8%), higher CDCC scores (% CDCC ≥ 4: 5.5% vs 2.7%), and longer LOS (median 3 vs 2 days, all p < 0.001). Being Black (vs White: +0.13 adjusted days, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19) was also associated with longer LOS and an increased likelihood of surgical complications (vs White: odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.42, both p < 0.01), but this association did not persist when outcomes were limited to microsurgical complications.ConclusionDisparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction between Black and White women extend beyond access to care and include perioperative factors and outcomes. These findings suggest an important opportunity to mitigate inequities in reconstruction through perioperative health optimization and improved access to and co-management with primary care.
| S-EPMC9347225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComplications from breast reconstruction may delay postmastectomy radiation therapy and impact breast cancer outcomes. The authors hypothesized that immediate breast reconstruction may be associated with delays in the initiation of radiation, but that this delay would not significantly impact overall patient survival.MethodsUsing the National Cancer Database, the authors identified women with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and received postmastectomy radiation therapy. Delayed radiation was defined as treatment initiated 6 months or more after surgery in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy or 12 weeks or more after surgery in patients who received neoadjuvant or no chemotherapy.ResultsWomen undergoing breast reconstruction had an increased time to postmastectomy radiation therapy, 154 days versus 132 days (p < 0.001), and were more likely to experience a delay in initiating radiation (OR, 1.25; 95 percent CI, 1.188 to 1.314). Other factors associated with delayed radiation included increased Charlson/Deyo scores, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nonprivate insurance, and black race. Cox proportional hazards models revealed no evidence of a reduced adjusted overall survival in the immediate breast reconstruction group (hazard ratio, 0.836; 95 percent CI, 0.802 to 0.871; p < 0.001). Restricted cubic spline analysis identified the threshold number of days at which the start of radiation began to impact survival at 169 days (95 percent CI, 160 to 190 days), 75 days (95 percent CI, 42 to 90 days), and 71 days (95 percent CI, 41 to 90 days) in patients undergoing adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and no chemotherapy, respectively.ConclusionImmediate breast reconstruction is associated with a modest delay in initiating postmastectomy radiation therapy but does not impact overall survival.Clinical question/level of evidenceTherapeutic, III.
| S-EPMC8297625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUse of autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast reconstructive surgery is gaining acceptance, but concerns regarding its efficacy and safety remain. We present a protocol for a systematic review that aims to update the findings since our previous systematic review on a number of outcomes of AFG.MethodsThe systematic review has been registered a priori (UIN: reviewregistry308). All study designs, including randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies and case reports/series, reporting original data, on women undergoing AFG for breast reconstruction following mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, will be included. Six categorical outcomes will be assessed: oncological; clinical; aesthetic/functional; patient-reported; process; and radiological.The search strategy will be devised to investigate 'fat grafting and breast reconstruction'. Electronic databases will be searched, 01 April 2014 to 21 August 2017: PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, UpToDate.com, NHS Evidence and the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Grey literature will be searched. Two trained, independent teams will screen all titles and abstracts, and relevant full texts, for eligibility. Data will be extracted under standardised extraction fields into a preformatted database.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international meetings within fields of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery, and surgical oncology. The work will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review and findings will be disseminated to interested parties through email and direct communication. The review aims to guide healthcare practice and policy.
| S-EPMC6913570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPost mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is an independent predictor of reconstructive complications. PMRT may alter the timing and type of reconstruction recommended. This study aimed to create a machine learning model to predict the probability of requiring PMRT after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).MethodsIn this retrospective study, breast cancer patients who underwent IBR from January 2017 to December 2020 were reviewed and data were collected on 81 preoperative characteristics. Primary outcome was recommendation for PMRT. Four algorithms were compared to maximize performance and clinical utility: logistic regression, elastic net (EN), logistic lasso, and random forest (RF). The cohort was split into a development dataset (75% of cohort for training-validation) and 25% used for the test set. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), precision-recall curves, and calibration plots.ResultsIn a total of 800 patients, 325 (40.6%) patients were recommended to undergo PMRT. With the training-validation dataset (n = 600), model performance was logistic regression 0.73 AUC [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.80]; RF 0.77 AUC (95% CI, 0.74-0.81); EN 0.77 AUC (95% CI, 0.73-0.81); logistic lasso 0.76 AUC (95% CI, 0.72-0.80). Without significantly sacrificing performance, 81 predictive factors were reduced to 12 for prediction with the EN method. With the test dataset (n = 200), performance of the EN prediction model was confirmed [0.794 AUC (95% CI, 0.730-0.858)].ConclusionA parsimonious accurate machine learning model for predicting PMRT after IBR was developed, tested, and translated into a clinically applicable online calculator for providers and patients.
| S-EPMC10846766 | biostudies-literature