Lily R Mundy1,2, Karen Homa1,2, Anne F Klassen1,2, Andrea L Pusic1,2, Carolyn L Kerrigan1,2. 1. Durham, N.C.; Lebanon, N.H.; New York, N.Y.; and Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 2. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center; the Plastic and Reconstructive Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and McMaster University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q Reduction module evaluates outcomes in reduction mammaplasty. However, there are currently no published normative scores, limiting the interpretation of BREAST-Q data. METHODS: The BREAST-Q Reduction module was administered via the Army of Women, an online community of women (with and without breast cancer) engaged in breast-cancer related research. Normative data were generated from women aged 18 years and older, without a history of breast cancer or breast surgery. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and a linear multivariate regression. Generated normative data were compared to published BREAST-Q Reduction findings. RESULTS: The preoperative version of the BREAST-Q Reduction module was completed by 1206 women. Participant mean age was 55 ± 13 years, mean body mass index was 27 ± 6 kg/m, and 40 percent (n = 481) had a bra cup size ≥ D. Mean normative scores were as follows: Satisfaction with Breasts, 57 ± 16; Psychosocial Well-being, 68 ± 19; Sexual Well-being, 55 ± 19; and Physical Well-being, 76 ± 11. Normative scores were lower in women with body mass index ≥ 30 and bra cup size ≥ D. In comparison to normative Army of Women scores, published BREAST-Q scores for women undergoing reduction mammaplasty were lower (worse) for preoperative patients and higher (better) for postoperative patients. CONCLUSION: These new Army of Women normative data provide insights into breast-related satisfaction and well-being in women not pursuing breast reduction, giving new clinical context to better understand the health burden of macromastia, and to demonstrate the value of reduction mammaplasty in certain patients.
BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q Reduction module evaluates outcomes in reduction mammaplasty. However, there are currently no published normative scores, limiting the interpretation of BREAST-Q data. METHODS: The BREAST-Q Reduction module was administered via the Army of Women, an online community of women (with and without breast cancer) engaged in breast-cancer related research. Normative data were generated from women aged 18 years and older, without a history of breast cancer or breast surgery. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and a linear multivariate regression. Generated normative data were compared to published BREAST-Q Reduction findings. RESULTS: The preoperative version of the BREAST-Q Reduction module was completed by 1206 women. Participant mean age was 55 ± 13 years, mean body mass index was 27 ± 6 kg/m, and 40 percent (n = 481) had a bra cup size ≥ D. Mean normative scores were as follows: Satisfaction with Breasts, 57 ± 16; Psychosocial Well-being, 68 ± 19; Sexual Well-being, 55 ± 19; and Physical Well-being, 76 ± 11. Normative scores were lower in women with body mass index ≥ 30 and bra cup size ≥ D. In comparison to normative Army of Women scores, published BREAST-Q scores for women undergoing reduction mammaplasty were lower (worse) for preoperative patients and higher (better) for postoperative patients. CONCLUSION: These new Army of Women normative data provide insights into breast-related satisfaction and well-being in women not pursuing breast reduction, giving new clinical context to better understand the health burden of macromastia, and to demonstrate the value of reduction mammaplasty in certain patients.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: C L Kerrigan; E D Collins; D Striplin; H M Kim; E Wilkins; B Cunningham; J Lowery Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: E Dale Collins; Carolyn L Kerrigan; Myra Kim; Julie C Lowery; Dana T Striplin; Bruce Cunningham; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Stefan Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie Scott; Achilleas Thoma; David Feeny; Andrea Pusic Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Wess A Cohen; Lily R Mundy; Tiffany N S Ballard; Anne Klassen; Stefan J Cano; John Browne; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: C A Pinto; B Peleteiro; C S Pinto; F Osório; S Costa; A Magalhães; H Mora; J Amaral; D Gonçalves; J L Fougo Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Laura C Nuzzi; Joseph M Firriolo; Catherine T McNamara; Shannon M Malloy; Gabrielle G Massey; Amy D DiVasta; Brian I Labow Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Nadia Sadok; Liesbeth Jansen; Martine D de Zoete; Berend van der Lei; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-12-23