Eva Thiboutot1, Peter Craighead2, Carmen Webb3, Claire Temple-Oberle2. 1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2. Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known with regard to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the setting of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent immediate IBR from a prospectively compiled database. The Breast Reconstruction Satisfaction Questionnaire (BRECON-31) was scored and compared between patients with and without PMRT. RESULTS: Sixty-four women met the study criteria. Forty-eight did not receive PMRT and 16 did. Nine women had an unanticipated indication for PMRT. The PMRT group was similar to the control group with regard to baseline characteristics (ie, age, marital status, body mass index, tobacco use, and comorbidities). However, treatment and oncologic characteristics (eg, diagnosis, tumour characteristics, systemic therapy use) differed. Of all complications, only capsular contracture rates differed (1.2% vs 13%; P = .01). Of the 9 subscales, 7 showed no difference in satisfaction between the groups. Radiated women scored lower in the arm concerns and breast appearance subscales. Scores were similar whether the indication for PMRT had been anticipated or not. DISCUSSION: Women with immediate IBR scored similarly to their nonradiated counterparts across 7 of 9 domains of satisfaction. Arm concerns and breast appearance scores are lower with PMRT, likely secondarily to more extensive nodal procedures in higher stage patients and to the side effect profile of radiotherapy. Our findings are in line with the few available studies using other PRO tools to evaluate the impact of PMRT on patient satisfaction and studies objectively measuring the effect of PMRT on arm morbidity and cosmetic outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Little is known with regard to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the setting of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent immediate IBR from a prospectively compiled database. The Breast Reconstruction Satisfaction Questionnaire (BRECON-31) was scored and compared between patients with and without PMRT. RESULTS: Sixty-four women met the study criteria. Forty-eight did not receive PMRT and 16 did. Nine women had an unanticipated indication for PMRT. The PMRT group was similar to the control group with regard to baseline characteristics (ie, age, marital status, body mass index, tobacco use, and comorbidities). However, treatment and oncologic characteristics (eg, diagnosis, tumour characteristics, systemic therapy use) differed. Of all complications, only capsular contracture rates differed (1.2% vs 13%; P = .01). Of the 9 subscales, 7 showed no difference in satisfaction between the groups. Radiated women scored lower in the arm concerns and breast appearance subscales. Scores were similar whether the indication for PMRT had been anticipated or not. DISCUSSION: Women with immediate IBR scored similarly to their nonradiated counterparts across 7 of 9 domains of satisfaction. Arm concerns and breast appearance scores are lower with PMRT, likely secondarily to more extensive nodal procedures in higher stage patients and to the side effect profile of radiotherapy. Our findings are in line with the few available studies using other PRO tools to evaluate the impact of PMRT on patient satisfaction and studies objectively measuring the effect of PMRT on arm morbidity and cosmetic outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
implant-based breast reconstruction; patient-reported outcomes; post-mastectomy radiation therapy
Authors: Gillian A Whitfield; Gail Horan; Michael S Irwin; Charles M Malata; Gordon C Wishart; Charles B Wilson Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Colleen M McCarthy; Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano; Amie Scott; Nancy Vanlaeken; Peter A Lennox; Amy K Alderman; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert E Mansel; Lesley Fallowfield; Mark Kissin; Amit Goyal; Robert G Newcombe; J Michael Dixon; Constantinos Yiangou; Kieran Horgan; Nigel Bundred; Ian Monypenny; David England; Mark Sibbering; Tholkifl I Abdullah; Lester Barr; Utheshtra Chetty; Dudley H Sinnett; Anne Fleissig; Dayalan Clarke; Peter J Ell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Claire L F Temple; E Francis Cook; Douglas C Ross; Margo Bettger-Hahn; Joy MacDermid Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jigna Desai Jhaveri; Stephen C Rush; Karen Kostroff; Dwight Derisi; Leonard A Farber; Virginia E Maurer; Jay L Bosworth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 7.038