Dataset Information

Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are three patient reported outcome measure instruments (PROMs) that have adequate content validity for breast reconstruction, BREAST-Q, BRECON-31 and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23, and they all have been robustly validated. The aim of this study was to systematically review scores giving meaning to validated PROMs for breast reconstruction after mastectomy and discuss methods to enable interpretation of them.

Methods

A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of PRISMA. Prospero CRD42021255874. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). The included studies were critically appraised using the GRADE approach.

Results

Three articles were finally included in the review: two studies on scores for healthy controls and one on minimally important differences (MIDs), both of BREAST-Q. All of the studies were performed in North America. Only MIDs based on statistical characteristics, and not on what constitutes a relevant change for the patient, exist. The risk of bias was evaluated as very high and moderate, respectively, of inconsistencies as low, of indirectness as high, of imprecisions as low, and of publication bias as probably low.

Conclusions

The overall certainty of evidence for scores giving meaning to PROMs for breast reconstruction is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). More studies are needed to establish relevant healthy control scores and what constitutes a relevant clinical difference for patient-reported outcome measures for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research are suggested in the article.

SUBMITTER: Weick L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8693348 | 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:BackgroundPostmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques differentially influence patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. Objective measures of shoulder biomechanics, which are uniquely influenced by reconstruction technique, may provide insight into the influence of reconstruction technique on patient-reported outcomes.MethodsRobot-assisted measures of shoulder strength and stiffness, and five validated patient-reported outcomes surveys were obtained from 46 women who had undergone mastectomy and a combined latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant, subpectoral implant, or DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Mediation analyses examined the role of functional shoulder biomechanics as a mediator between reconstruction technique and patient-reported outcomes.ResultsReconstruction technique affected shoulder biomechanics, with latissimus dorsi flap plus subpectoral implant patients exhibiting reduced shoulder strength and stiffness compared with subpectoral implant and DIEP flap patients. Increasing external rotation strength was predictive of improved upper extremity function (p = 0.04). Increasing shoulder stiffness while at rest was predictive of worsened upper extremity function (p = 0.03). Increasing shoulder stiffness at rest and during contraction was indicative of worsened psychosocial well-being (all p ≤ 0.02). Reconstruction technique did not predict survey scores of function directly, or when mediated by functional shoulder biomechanics.ConclusionsIn the current cohort, latissimus dorsi plus subpectoral implant breast reconstructions significantly reduced shoulder strength and stiffness when compared with the other techniques. In addition, objective measures of shoulder biomechanics were predictive of patient-reported physical and psychosocial well-being. The results emphasize the need for improved perioperative screening for shoulder functional deficits in patients undergoing breast reconstruction.Clinical quesiton/level of evidenceTherapeutic, II.

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:BackgroundBased on the case of palliative care and euthanasia in the Netherlands, this paper presents an analysis of frames and counter-frames used in the ongoing public debate about these two intertwined topics. Each (counter)frame presents a cultural theme that can act as a prism to give meaning to palliative care and/or euthanasia. Each frame comprehends a different problem definition, consequences and policy options. Typical word choices and metaphors are identified that can evoke these frames and the underlying reasoning. The frames do not belong to a specific stakeholder but a pattern can be seen in their use that is related to interests and ideology.MethodsAn inductive framing analysis was conducted of 2,700 text fragments taken from various Dutch newspapers, websites of stakeholders and policy documents in the period 2016-2018. After an extensive process of thematic coding, axial coding, selective coding and peer review seven frames and seven counter-frames about palliative care and euthanasia were constructed. Fifteen experts in the field of palliative and/or end-of-life care commented on the overview during a member check.ResultsTwo frames about palliative care were constructed: the Fear of death frame, which stresses the hopeless 'terminality' of palliative care and the Heavy burden frame, in which palliative care is too big a responsibility for the relatives of the patient. In addition, two counter-frames were constructed: palliative care as a contributor to Quality of life and Completion. With regard to euthanasia, five frames were identified that lead to a problematising definition: Thou shalt not kill, Slippery slope, Lack of willpower, I am not God, and Medical progress. Five counter-frames offer a non-problematising definition of euthanasia in the debate: Mercy, Prevention, Triumph of reason, Absolute autonomy, and Economic utility thinking.ConclusionsThe debate in the Netherlands on euthanasia and palliative care is characterized by a plurality of angles that goes beyond the bipolar distinction between the pros and cons of euthanasia and palliative care. Only with an overview of all potential frames in mind can an audience truly make informed decisions. The frame matrix is not only useful for policy makers to know all perspectives when joining public debate, but also to health care workers to get into meaningful conversations with their patients and families.