Dataset Information

Quality of Patient Decisions About Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Breast reconstruction has the potential to improve a person's body image and quality of life but has important risks. Variations in who undergoes breast reconstruction have led to questions about the quality of patient decisions.

Objective

To assess the quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction.

Design, setting, and participants

A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 27, 2012, to February 28, 2014, at a single, academic, multidisciplinary oncology clinic among women planning to undergo mastectomy for stage I to III invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylaxis.

Exposures

Mastectomy only and mastectomy with reconstruction.

Main outcome and measures

Knowledge, as ascertained using the Decision Quality Instrument; preference concordance, based on rating and ranking of key attributes; and decision quality, defined as having knowledge of 50% or more and preference concordance.

Results

During the 20-month period, 214 patients were eligible, 182 were approached, and 32 missed. We enrolled 145 patients (79.7% enrollment rate), and received surveys from 131 patients (72.0% participation rate). Five participants became ineligible. The final study population was 126 patients. Among the 126 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [12.1] years), the mean (SD) knowledge score was 58.5% (16.2%) and did not differ by treatment group (mastectomy only, 55.2% [15.0%]; mastectomy with reconstruction, 60.5% [16.5%]). A total of 82 of 123 participants (66.7%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy only; 39 of these women (47.6%) underwent mastectomy only. A total of 41 participants (32.5%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy with reconstruction; 36 of these women (87.8%) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Overall, 52 of 120 participants (43.3%) made a high-quality decision. In multivariable analysis, white race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.00-7.38; P = .05), having private insurance (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35-1.93; P < .001), having a high school education or less (vs some college) (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.22-19.21; P = .02), having a college degree (vs some college) (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; P < .001), and not having a malignant neoplasm (eg, BRCA carriers) (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.25-7.85; P = .01) were independently associated with making a high-quality decision.

Conclusions and relevance

A minority of patients undergoing mastectomy in a single academic center made a high-quality decision about reconstruction. Shared decision making is needed to support decisions about breast reconstruction.

SUBMITTER: Lee CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5559314 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose The goals of immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction are to minimize deformity and optimize quality of life as perceived by patients. We prospectively evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women undergoing immediate implant-based or autologous reconstruction. Methods Women undergoing immediate postmastectomy reconstruction for invasive cancer and/or carcinoma in situ were enrolled at 11 sites. Women underwent implant-based or autologous tissue reconstruction. Patients completed the BREAST-Q, a condition-specific PRO measure for breast surgery patients, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29, a generic PRO measure, before and 1 year after surgery. Mean changes in PRO scores were summarized. Mixed-effects regression models were used to compare PRO scores across procedure types. Results In total, 1,632 patients (n = 1,139 implant, n = 493 autologous) were included; 1,183 (72.5%) responded to 1-year questionnaires. After analysis was controlled for baseline values, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had greater satisfaction with their breasts than those who underwent implant-based reconstruction (difference, 6.3; P < .001), greater sexual well-being (difference, 4.5; P = .003), and greater psychosocial well-being (difference, 3.7; P = .02) at 1 year. Patients in the autologous reconstruction group had improved satisfaction with breasts (difference, 8.0; P = .002) and psychosocial well-being (difference, 4.6; P = .047) compared with preoperative baseline. Physical well-being of the chest was not fully restored in either the implant group (difference, -3.8; P = .001) or autologous group (-2.2; P = .04), nor was physical well-being of the abdomen in patients who underwent autologous reconstruction (-13.4; P < .001). Anxiety and depression were mitigated at 1 year in both groups. Compared with their baseline reports, patients who underwent implant reconstruction had decreased fatigue (difference, -1.4; P = .035), whereas patients who underwent autologous reconstruction had increased pain interference (difference, 2.0; P = .006). Conclusion At 1 year after mastectomy, patients who underwent autologous reconstruction were more satisfied with their breasts and had greater psychosocial and sexual well-being than those who underwent implant reconstruction. Although satisfaction with breasts was equal to or greater than baseline levels, physical well-being was not fully restored. This information can help patients better understand expected outcomes and may guide innovations to improve outcomes.

Project description:PurposeThe goal of this study was to explore the perspectives and practice of radiation oncologists who treat breast cancer patients who have had breast reconstruction.MethodsIn 2010, an original electronic survey was sent to all physician members of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Research Institute-Breast Cancer Studies Group in the United Kingdom, Thai Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Swiss Society of Radiation Oncology, and Turkish Radiation Oncology Society. We identified factors associated with radiation oncologists who treat breast cancer patients with reconstruction performed prior to radiation and obtained information regarding radiation management of the breast reconstruction.Results358 radiation oncologists responded, and 60% of the physicians were from the United States. While 64% of participants agree or strongly agree that breast image affects a woman's quality of life during radiation, 57% feel that reconstruction challenges their ability to deliver effective breast radiation. Compared with other countries, treatment within the United States was associated with a high reconstruction rate (>/= 50% of mastectomy patients) prior to radiation (p < 0.05). Delayed-immediate reconstruction with a temporary tissue expander was more common in the United States than in other countries (52% vs. 23%, p = 0.01). Among physicians who treat patients with tissue expanders, the majority (60%) prefer a moderately inflated implant with 150-250 cc of fluid rather than a completely deflated (13%) or inflated expander (28%) during radiation. Among radiation oncologists who treat reconstructions, 49% never use bolus and 40% never boost a breast reconstruction. United States physicians were more likely than physicians from other countries to boost or bolus the reconstruction irrespective of the type of reconstruction seen in their clinic patients (p < 0.01).ConclusionsGreat variation in practice is evident from our study of radiation treatment for breast cancer patients with reconstruction. Further research on the impact and delivery of radiation to a reconstructed breast may validate some of the observed practices, highlight the variability in treatment practice, and help create a treatment consensus.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite marked differences in these treatment strategies, little is known with regard to their association with long-term quality of life (QOL).ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT vs mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with long-term QOL.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study used data from the Texas Cancer Registry for women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008. The study sample was mailed a survey between March 2017 and April 2018. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018 to October 15, 2021.ExposuresBreast-conserving surgery with RT or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was satisfaction with breasts, measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being; health utility, measured using the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret. Multivariable linear regression models with weights for treatment, age, and race and ethnicity tested associations of the exposure with outcomes.ResultsOf 647 patients who responded to the survey (40.0%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery, and 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236). Among the 647 respondents, the median age was 53 years (range, 23-85 years) and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years (range, 8.4-12.5 years). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between breast-conserving surgery with RT (referent) and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT in satisfaction with breasts (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, -2.45 to 7.88; P = .30) or physical well-being (effect size, -1.80; 95% CI, -5.65 to 2.05; P = .36). In contrast, psychosocial well-being (effect size, -8.61; 95% CI, -13.26 to -3.95; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, -10.68; 95% CI, -16.60 to -4.76; P < .001) were significantly worse with mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Health utility (effect size, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .61) did not differ by treatment group.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings support equivalence of breast-conserving surgery with RT and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with regard to breast satisfaction and physical well-being. However, breast-conserving surgery with RT was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in psychosocial and sexual well-being. These findings may help inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Project description:BackgroundBreast reconstruction is offered to improve quality of life for women after mastectomy for breast cancer, but information regarding the long-term patient-reported outcomes of different reconstruction procedures is currently lacking. The Brighter study aimed to evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in a population-based cohort.MethodsWomen who underwent mastectomy with IBR for breast cancer in England between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Surviving women were invited to complete the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L™, and ICECAP-A at least 12 years after the index procedure. Questionnaires were scored according to developers' instructions and compared by IBR type.ResultsSome 1236 women underwent IBR; 343 (27.8 per cent) had 2-stage expander/implant, 630 (51.0 per cent) latissimus dorsi, and 263 (21.3 per cent) abdominal flap reconstructions, with a mean(s.d.) follow-up of 13.3(0.5) years. Women who underwent abdominal flap reconstruction reported higher scores in all BREAST-Q domains than those who had other procedures. These differences remained statistically significant and clinically meaningful after adjusting for age, ethnicity, geographical region, socioeconomic status, smoking, BMI, and complications. The greatest difference was seen in scores for satisfaction with breasts; women who had abdominal flap reconstructions reported scores that were 13.17 (95 per cent c.i. 9.48 to 16.87) points; P < 0.001) higher than those among women who had two-stage expander/implant procedures. Women who underwent latissimus dorsi reconstruction reported significantly more pain/discomfort on the EQ-5D-5L™, but no other differences between procedures were seen.ConclusionLong-term patient-reported outcomes are significantly better following abdominal flap reconstruction than other traditional procedure types. These findings should be shared with women considering IBR to help them make informed decisions about their surgical options.