Meghan R Flanagan1, Emily C Zabor2, Anya Romanoff1, Sarah Fuzesi1, Michelle Stempel1, Babak J Mehrara3, Monica Morrow1, Andrea L Pusic4, Mary L Gemignani5. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgical Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. gemignam@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many factors influence decisions regarding choice of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction for early invasive breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare patient satisfaction following BCS and mastectomy with implant reconstruction (M-iR) utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Women with stage I or II breast cancer undergoing BCS or M-iR who completed a BREAST-Q from 2010 to 2016 were identified by retrospective review of a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared, and linear mixed models were used to analyze associations with BREAST-Q scores over time. RESULTS: Our study group was composed of 3233 women; 2026 (63%) had BCS, 123 (3.8%) had nipple-sparing mastectomy, and 1084 (34%) had skin-sparing or total mastectomy. Median time from surgery to BREAST-Q was 205 days for BCS and 639 days for M-iR (p < 0.001). Regardless of type of surgery, breast satisfaction scores decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001), whereas psychosocial (p = 0.001) and sexual (p = 0.004) well-being scores increased significantly over time. BCS was associated with significantly higher scores over time compared with M-iR across all subscales (all p < 0.001). Radiation was significantly associated with decreased scores over time across all subscales (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Breast satisfaction and quality-of-life scores were higher for BCS compared with M-iR in early-stage invasive breast cancer. These findings may help in counseling women who have a choice for surgical treatment. Breast satisfaction scores decreased over time in all women, highlighting the need for further evaluation with longer follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Many factors influence decisions regarding choice of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy with reconstruction for early invasive breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare patient satisfaction following BCS and mastectomy with implant reconstruction (M-iR) utilizing the BREAST-Qpatient-reported outcome measure. METHODS:Women with stage I or II breast cancer undergoing BCS or M-iR who completed a BREAST-Q from 2010 to 2016 were identified by retrospective review of a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared, and linear mixed models were used to analyze associations with BREAST-Q scores over time. RESULTS: Our study group was composed of 3233 women; 2026 (63%) had BCS, 123 (3.8%) had nipple-sparing mastectomy, and 1084 (34%) had skin-sparing or total mastectomy. Median time from surgery to BREAST-Q was 205 days for BCS and 639 days for M-iR (p < 0.001). Regardless of type of surgery, breast satisfaction scores decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001), whereas psychosocial (p = 0.001) and sexual (p = 0.004) well-being scores increased significantly over time. BCS was associated with significantly higher scores over time compared with M-iR across all subscales (all p < 0.001). Radiation was significantly associated with decreased scores over time across all subscales (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Breast satisfaction and quality-of-life scores were higher for BCS compared with M-iR in early-stage invasive breast cancer. These findings may help in counseling women who have a choice for surgical treatment. Breast satisfaction scores decreased over time in all women, highlighting the need for further evaluation with longer follow-up.
Authors: Catherine Pesce; Jennifer Jaffe; Kristine Kuchta; Katharine Yao; Mark Sisco Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jeffery M Chakedis; Annie Tang; Alison Savitz; Liisa L Lyon; Patricia E Palacios; Brooke Vuong; Maihgan A Kavanagh; Gillian E Kuehner; Sharon B Chang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Kari M Rosenkranz; Karla Ballman; Linda McCall; Colleen McCarthy; Charlotte D Kubicky; Laurie Cuttino; Kelly K Hunt; Armando Giuliano; Kimberly J Van Zee; Bruce Haffty; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Wilfred R Pigeon; Dongmei Li; Sheila N Garland; Michael L Perlis; Julia E Inglis; Vincent Vinciguerra; Thomas Anderson; Lisa S Evans; James L Wade; Deborah J Ossip; Gary R Morrow; Julie Ryan Wolf Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Christina M Dudley; Alyssa A Wiener; Trista J Stankowski-Drengler; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Samuel O Poore; Caprice C Greenberg; Heather B Neuman Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 3.078