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: Breast reconstruction (BR) makes an important positive contribution to the quality of life of many women who have undergone mastectomy for breast cancer. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the evidence for possible relationships between women's expectations of BR and their satisfaction with outcomes to inform and facilitate improved communication about BR options prior to initial surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature reporting expectations of BR published between 1 January 1994 and 6 March 2017 identified 2107 initial search results. Twenty-one publications, reporting 20 studies (2288 participants), satisfied the selection criteria. Information on study aim and time frame, participation rate, design/methods, limitations/bias, results and conclusions, as well as participant clinical and demographic information, was reported. An overall quality score was generated for each study. RESULTS: Four of five studies that quantified expectations and satisfaction found a positive relationship between the two. This may indicate a possible trend, but as 16 of the 21 included publications did not provide quantifiable data, no firm conclusions are possible. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for policy and practice which are applicable to medical decision-making more broadly. There is a clear need to utilise accurate and consistent measures of patient-reported expectations and to educate both patients and health practitioners about the importance of informed discussion about treatment options. This is particularly salient for women facing a choice about BR, a major breast cancer survivorship decision. Routine use of an expectations checklist in pre-operative consultations may be useful.
PURPOSE: Breast reconstruction (BR) makes an important positive contribution to the quality of life of many women who have undergone mastectomy for breast cancer. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the evidence for possible relationships between women's expectations of BR and their satisfaction with outcomes to inform and facilitate improved communication about BR options prior to initial surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature reporting expectations of BR published between 1 January 1994 and 6 March 2017 identified 2107 initial search results. Twenty-one publications, reporting 20 studies (2288 participants), satisfied the selection criteria. Information on study aim and time frame, participation rate, design/methods, limitations/bias, results and conclusions, as well as participant clinical and demographic information, was reported. An overall quality score was generated for each study. RESULTS: Four of five studies that quantified expectations and satisfaction found a positive relationship between the two. This may indicate a possible trend, but as 16 of the 21 included publications did not provide quantifiable data, no firm conclusions are possible. CONCLUSION: Our findings have important implications for policy and practice which are applicable to medical decision-making more broadly. There is a clear need to utilise accurate and consistent measures of patient-reported expectations and to educate both patients and health practitioners about the importance of informed discussion about treatment options. This is particularly salient for women facing a choice about BR, a major breast cancer survivorship decision. Routine use of an expectations checklist in pre-operative consultations may be useful.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast reconstruction; Expectations; Patient-reported data; Quality of life; Survivorship
Authors: Gedge D Rosson; Sachin M Shridharani; Michael Magarakis; Michele A Manahan; Basak Basdag; Marta M Gilson; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Microsurgery Date: 2013-02-17 Impact factor: 2.425
Authors: M K Kim; T Kim; H G Moon; U S Jin; K Kim; J Kim; J W Lee; J Kim; E Lee; T K Yoo; D-Y Noh; K W Minn; W Han Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Krista M Nicklaus; Xiomara T Gonzalez; Koushalya Sachdev; Jun Liu; Deepti Chopra; Aubri S Hoffman; Summer E Hanson; Mia K Markey; Gregory P Reece Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-05-16
Authors: Soo-Kyung Bok; Youngshin Song; Ancho Lim; Hyunsuk Choi; Hyunkyung Shin; Sohyun Jin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.390