Kathy Flitcroft1,2, Meagan Brennan3,4, Andrew Spillane3,4. 1. Breast & Surgical Oncology at The Poche Centre, 40 Rocklands Rd, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia. kathy.flitcroft@melanoma.org.au. 2. Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. kathy.flitcroft@melanoma.org.au. 3. Breast & Surgical Oncology at The Poche Centre, 40 Rocklands Rd, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia. 4. Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many studies have explored women's reasons for choosing or declining a particular type of breast reconstruction (BR) following mastectomy for breast cancer. This systematic review synthesises women's reasons for choosing a range of BR options, including no BR, in different settings and across time. METHODS: Thirteen databases were systematically searched, with 30 studies (4269 participants), meeting the selection criteria. Information on study aim and time frame, participation rate, design/methods, limitations/bias, reasons and conclusions, as well as participant clinical and demographic information, was reported. An overall quality score was generated for each study. Reasons were grouped into eight domains. RESULTS: While study methodology and results were heterogeneous, all reported reasons were covered by the eight domains: Feeling/looking normal; Feeling/looking good; Being practical; Influence of others; Relationship expectations; Fear; Timing; and Unnecessary. We found a strong consistency in reasons across studies, ranging from 52% of relevant publications citing relationship expectations as a reason for choosing BR, up to 91% citing fear as a reason for delaying or declining BR. Major thematic findings were a lack of adequate information about BR, lack of genuine choice for women and additional access limitations due to health system barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding women's reasons for wanting or not wanting BR can assist clinicians to help women make choices most aligned with their individual values and needs. Our thematic findings have equity implications and illustrate the need for surgeons to discuss all clinically appropriate BR options with mastectomy patients, even if some options are not available locally.
PURPOSE: Many studies have explored women's reasons for choosing or declining a particular type of breast reconstruction (BR) following mastectomy for breast cancer. This systematic review synthesises women's reasons for choosing a range of BR options, including no BR, in different settings and across time. METHODS: Thirteen databases were systematically searched, with 30 studies (4269 participants), meeting the selection criteria. Information on study aim and time frame, participation rate, design/methods, limitations/bias, reasons and conclusions, as well as participant clinical and demographic information, was reported. An overall quality score was generated for each study. Reasons were grouped into eight domains. RESULTS: While study methodology and results were heterogeneous, all reported reasons were covered by the eight domains: Feeling/looking normal; Feeling/looking good; Being practical; Influence of others; Relationship expectations; Fear; Timing; and Unnecessary. We found a strong consistency in reasons across studies, ranging from 52% of relevant publications citing relationship expectations as a reason for choosing BR, up to 91% citing fear as a reason for delaying or declining BR. Major thematic findings were a lack of adequate information about BR, lack of genuine choice for women and additional access limitations due to health system barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding women's reasons for wanting or not wanting BR can assist clinicians to help women make choices most aligned with their individual values and needs. Our thematic findings have equity implications and illustrate the need for surgeons to discuss all clinically appropriate BR options with mastectomy patients, even if some options are not available locally.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Reasons
Authors: Ron Barry Somogyi; Angela Webb; Nairy Baghdikian; John Stephenson; Karen-Leigh Edward; Wayne Morrison Journal: Breast Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Amy K Alderman; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer Waljee; Mahasin Mujahid; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Delphine Héquet; Kevin Zarca; Sylvie Dolbeault; Benoît Couturaud; Charlotte Ngô; Virgine Fourchotte; Anne De La Rochefordière; Jean-Guillaume Féron; Alfred Fitoussi; Catherine Bélichard; Fabien Reyal; Fatima Laki; David Hajage; Brigitte Sigal; Bernard Asselain; Séverine Alran Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-07-18
Authors: Paulina Bajonero-Canonico; Ana S Ferrigno; Jorge A Saldaña-Rodriguez; David E Hinojosa-Gonzalez; Cristel G de la O-Maldonado; Carlos de la Cruz-de la Cruz; Brizio Moreno-Jaime; Mariela Hernandez-Pavon; Jose Moral-de la Rubia; Melina Miaja-Avila; Cynthia Villarreal-Garza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maria Herrera de la Muela; Enrique García López; Laura Frías Aldeguer; Paloma Gómez-Campelo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yingyu Feng; Kathy Flitcroft; Marina T van Leeuwen; Adam G Elshaug; Andrew Spillane; Sallie-Anne Pearson Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 1.872