BACKGROUND: To analyze the relationship of objective and subjective evaluation tools of breast aesthetics, we compare the results of the BCCT.core (breast cancer conservative treatment.cosmetic results) software, a semiautomated objective symmetry evaluation tool, with those of the Aesthetic Status of the BCTOS (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale) patient questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 128 patients with one-sided, primary breast cancer, treated conservatively in a prospective, exploratory study in order to assess the inter-rater reliability of the BCCT.core and the agreement between the BCCT.core and the BCTOS preoperatively, shortly and 1 year after surgery. Therefore, we use agreement rates, multiple (mk), and weighted (wk) kappa coefficients as statistical methods. Furthermore, we analyzed patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related variables as possible covariates to explain agreement. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability for the semiautomated BCCT.core is very good with agreement rates up to 84% (mk = 0.80). The agreement rates of the BCCT.core and the BCTOS Aesthetic Status range between 35 and 44% subject to the different times of assessment (wk = 0.34 at best). Moreover, the patients judge their aesthetic outcome more positively than the software. None of the considered patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related covariates turned out to explain agreement. CONCLUSION: The BCCT.core is a reliable instrument that shows fair agreement with patient's perspective.
BACKGROUND: To analyze the relationship of objective and subjective evaluation tools of breast aesthetics, we compare the results of the BCCT.core (breast cancer conservative treatment.cosmetic results) software, a semiautomated objective symmetry evaluation tool, with those of the Aesthetic Status of the BCTOS (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale) patient questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 128 patients with one-sided, primary breast cancer, treated conservatively in a prospective, exploratory study in order to assess the inter-rater reliability of the BCCT.core and the agreement between the BCCT.core and the BCTOS preoperatively, shortly and 1 year after surgery. Therefore, we use agreement rates, multiple (mk), and weighted (wk) kappa coefficients as statistical methods. Furthermore, we analyzed patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related variables as possible covariates to explain agreement. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability for the semiautomated BCCT.core is very good with agreement rates up to 84% (mk = 0.80). The agreement rates of the BCCT.core and the BCTOS Aesthetic Status range between 35 and 44% subject to the different times of assessment (wk = 0.34 at best). Moreover, the patients judge their aesthetic outcome more positively than the software. None of the considered patient-, tumor-, and therapy-related covariates turned out to explain agreement. CONCLUSION: The BCCT.core is a reliable instrument that shows fair agreement with patient's perspective.
Authors: Jay P Reddy; Xiudong Lei; Sheng-Cheng Huang; Krista M Nicklaus; Michelle C Fingeret; Simona F Shaitelman; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Fatima Merchant; Mia K Markey; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tammy Corica; Anna K Nowak; Christobel M Saunders; Max K Bulsara; Mandy Taylor; Norman R Williams; Mohammed Keshtgar; David J Joseph; Jayant S Vaidya Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 3.481