Dataset Information

Survival in breast cancer patients with a delayed DIEP flap breast reconstruction after adjustment for socioeconomic status and comorbidity.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Overall survival in breast cancer patients receiving a delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is better than in those without delayed breast reconstruction. This study aimed at determining the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) and comorbidity on these observations.

Materials and methods

This matched cohort study included all consecutive women undergoing a delayed DIEP flap reconstruction at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, between 1999 and 2013. Controls had not received any delayed breast reconstruction and were relapse-free after a corresponding follow-up interval. Matching was by year of and age at mastectomy, tumour stage and lymph node status. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and socioeconomic data were obtained from national registers. Associations with breast cancer-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) were investigated by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

Results

Women in the DIEP group (N = 254) more often continued education after primary school (88.6% versus 82.6%, P = 0.026), belonged to the high-income group (76.0% versus 63.1%, P < 0.001), were in a partnership (57.1% versus 55.7%, P = 0.024) and healthier (median CCI 1.00 (range 0-13) versus 2.00 (range 0-16), P = 0.021) than the control group (N = 729). After adjustment for tumour and treatment factors, SES and comorbidity, OS remained significantly better for the DIEP group than the control group (HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.44-3.55).

Conclusion

Women with a delayed DIEP flap reconstruction are a subgroup of higher socioeconomic status and better health. Higher survival estimates for the DIEP group persisted after adjusting for those differences, suggesting the presence of further unmeasured covariates.

SUBMITTER: Coude Adam H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390766 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The authors investigated aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction in women who have undergone deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Patients who underwent DIEP flap reconstruction without postmastectomy radiotherapy were the control group. METHODS:Participants who had undergone DIEP flap reconstruction between September 1, 2009, and September 1, 2014, were recruited, answered the BREAST-Q, and underwent three-dimensional surface-imaging. A panel assessed the aesthetic outcome by reviewing these images. RESULTS:One hundred sixty-seven women participated. Eighty women (48 percent) underwent immediate DIEP flap reconstruction and no postmastectomy radiotherapy; 28 (17 percent) underwent immediate DIEP flap reconstruction with postmastectomy radiotherapy; 38 (23 percent) underwent simple mastectomy, postmastectomy radiotherapy, and DIEP flap reconstruction; and 21 (13 percent) underwent mastectomy with temporizing implant, postmastectomy radiotherapy, and DIEP flap reconstruction. Median satisfaction scores were significantly different among the groups (p < 0.05). Post hoc comparison demonstrated that women who had an immediate DIEP flap reconstruction were significantly less satisfied if they had postmastectomy radiotherapy. In women requiring radiotherapy, those undergoing delayed reconstruction after a simple mastectomy were most satisfied, but there was no significant difference between the immediate DIEP flap and temporizing implant groups. Median panel scores differed among groups, being significantly higher if the immediate reconstruction was not subjected to radiotherapy. There was no significant difference in panel assessment among the three groups of women who had received radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who avoid having their immediate DIEP flap reconstruction irradiated are more satisfied and have better aesthetic outcome than those who undergo postmastectomy radiotherapy. In women requiring radiotherapy and who wish to have an immediate or "delayed-immediate" reconstruction, there were no significant differences in panel or patient satisfaction. Therefore, immediate DIEP flap reconstruction or mastectomy with temporizing implant then DIEP flap surgery are acceptable treatment pathways in the context of post-mastectomy radiotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial complication rates after postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) in breast cancer patients have been reported. Few studies have reported on the resulting psychological distress (PD) and satisfaction with the aesthetic result in relation to postoperative complications after completion of implant or DIEP flap BR. The present study investigated whether women were able to recover from complication related distress in the long term.MethodsPD was prospectively measured using questionnaires regarding anxiety, depression and cancer distress. Eligible patients completed questionnaires before BR (T0, n = 144), after one month (T1, n = 139) and after completion of BR, approximately 21 months after initial reconstructive surgery (T2, n = 119). Satisfaction with the aesthetic result was assessed 21 months after BR. Data concerning complications, subsequent additional surgery and total reconstruction failure up to T2 were collected from the medical records. Analyses were performed using multi-level regression analyses correcting for age.ResultsOne or more complications occurred in 61 patients (42%) and 50 women required subsequent surgery (35%). In time, mean PD significantly declined towards baseline scores independent of complications. However, a total reconstruction failure (n = 10) was significantly associated with a large temporary increase in depression scores. After additional surgery due to complications patients were less satisfied with aesthetic outcome, although patient satisfaction was independent of PD.ConclusionsPD outcomes generally declined to normal levels after completion of the entire BR course. Patients experiencing a total reconstruction failure reported more depression after this loss, but in the long term recovered to the same level as women without complications. These findings indicate that women generally can cope efficiently with these serious adverse events, even if they were less satisfied with the aesthetic result.

Project description:ImportanceCohort studies show better survival after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) than after mastectomy (Mx) without RT. It remains unclear whether this is an independent effect or a consequence of selection bias.ObjectiveTo determine whether the reported survival benefit of breast conservation is eliminated by adjustment for 2 pivotal confounders, comorbidity and socioeconomic status.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study using prospectively collected national data. Swedish public health care; nationwide clinical data from the National Breast Cancer Quality Register, comorbidity data from Patient Registers at the National Board of Health and Welfare, and individual-level education and income data from Statistics Sweden. The cohort included all women diagnosed as having primary invasive T1-2 N0-2 breast cancer and undergoing breast surgery in Sweden from 2008 to 2017. Data were analyzed between August 19, 2020, and November 12, 2020.ExposuresLocoregional treatment comparing 3 groups: breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS+RT), mastectomy without radiotherapy (Mx-RT), and mastectomy with radiotherapy (Mx+RT).Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Main outcomes were determined before initiation of data retrieval.ResultsAmong 48 986 women, 29 367 (59.9%) had BCS+RT, 12413 (25.3%) had Mx-RT, and 7206 (14.7%) had Mx+RT. Median follow-up was 6.28 years (range, 0.01-11.70). All-cause death occurred in 6573 cases, with death caused by breast cancer in 2313 cases; 5-year OS was 91.1% (95% CI, 90.8-91.3) and BCSS was 96.3% (95% CI, 96.1-96.4). Apart from expected differences in clinical parameters, women receiving Mx-RT were older, had a lower level of education, and lower income. Both Mx groups had a higher comorbidity burden irrespective of RT. After stepwise adjustment for all covariates, OS and BCSS were significantly worse after Mx-RT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.66-1.92 and HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.90, respectively) and Mx+RT (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37 and HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46, respectively) than after BCS+RT.Conclusions and relevanceDespite adjustment for previously unmeasured confounders, BCS+RT yielded better survival than Mx irrespective of RT. If both interventions are valid options, mastectomy should not be regarded as equal to breast conservation.

Project description:Policy Points Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience poorer survival rates after diagnosis of breast cancer, even when enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the difference in survival is due to more advanced cancer on presentation and the general poor health of lower SES patients, while only a very small fraction of the SES disparity is due to differences in cancer treatment. Even when comparing only low- versus not-low-SES whites (without confounding by race) the survival disparity between disparate white SES populations is very large and is associated with lower use of preventive care, despite having insurance.ContextDisparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES) exist despite the "safety net" programs Medicare and Medicaid. What is less clear is the extent to which SES disparities affect various racial and ethnic groups and whether causes differ across populations.MethodsWe conducted a tapered matching study comparing 1,890 low-SES (LSES) non-Hispanic white, 1,824 black, and 723 Hispanic white women to 60,307 not-low-SES (NLSES) non-Hispanic white women, all in Medicare and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2010 in 17 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions. LSES Medicare patients were Medicaid dual-eligible and resided in neighborhoods with both high poverty and low education. NLSES Medicare patients had none of these factors.Measurements5-year and median survival.FindingsLSES non-Hispanic white patients were diagnosed with more stage IV disease (6.6% vs 3.6%; p < 0.0001), larger tumors (24.6 mm vs 20.2 mm; p < 0.0001), and more chronic diseases such as diabetes (37.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001) than NLSES non-Hispanic white patients. Disparity in 5-year survival (NLSES - LSES) was 13.7% (p < 0.0001) when matched for age, year, and SEER site (a 42-month difference in median survival). Additionally, matching 55 presentation factors, including stage, reduced the disparity to 4.9% (p = 0.0012), but further matching on treatments yielded little further change in disparity: 4.6% (p = 0.0014). Survival disparities among LSES blacks and Hispanics, also versus NLSES whites, were significantly associated with presentation factors, though black patients also displayed disparities related to initial treatment. Before being diagnosed, all LSES populations used significantly less preventive care services than matched NLSES controls.ConclusionsIn Medicare, SES disparities in breast cancer survival were large (even among non-Hispanic whites) and predominantly related to differences of presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than differences in treatment. Preventive care was less frequent in LSES patients, which may help explain disparities at presentation.