Literature DB >> 31538070

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following mastectomy with breast reconstruction or without reconstruction: a systematic review.

Leonardo Z Cordova1,2, David J Hunter-Smith1,2, Warren M Rozen1,2.   

Abstract

The cornerstone of reconstructive surgery following mastectomy is to restore cosmesis and improve physical and psychological health. Consequently, it has become essential for instruments that measure surgical outcomes to include the direct perspective of patients. Many reviews have failed to show significant improvements in quality of life domains following breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy alone. However, with advances in surgical techniques and patient reported outcome measure (PROM) assessment tools designed precisely for breast reconstruction patients, a modern systematic review is warranted. An electronic literature review was performed using CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Medline (using PubMed) comparing patient reported outcome measures of patients undergoing mastectomy alone versus patients undergoing mastectomy with breast reconstruction. Studies in the English and Portuguese languages since the year 2000 were included. The review was undertaken adhering to PRISMA guidelines with last entry on the 31/5/2018. Full text review yield 42 articles of relevance to the inclusion criteria. The most widely used PROM instruments such as Breast-Q, EORTC-Q30/Q23, Short Form 36, FACT-B and others are explored. The specific difficulties conducting such studies and biases identified are investigated further. Studies comparing mastectomy alone against mastectomy with reconstruction show difficulties forming groups with similar clinical and epidemiological characteristics. There are inherent limitations to performing a randomised controlled trial on this topic, including matching patient groups in terms of age, socioeconomical background and cancer staging, and this affects the results of the PROM instruments. Within these limitations, the literature suggests that PROM support the use of breast reconstruction following mastectomy but care must be made selecting patients. The finding is supported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines which state that breast reconstruction should be offered to all women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; breast reconstruction; mastectomy; patient reported outcome measures (PROM)

Year:  2019        PMID: 31538070      PMCID: PMC6723012          DOI: 10.21037/gs.2019.07.02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  69 in total

1.  The impact of mastectomy, breast-conserving treatment and immediate breast reconstruction on the quality of life of Chinese women.

Authors:  K W Fung; Y Lau; R Fielding; A Or; A W Yip
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 1.872

2.  The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Anne Klassen; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Evaluation of Social Support, Quality of Life, and Body Image in Women with Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Roberta Spatuzzi; Anna Vespa; Primo Lorenzi; Guido Miccinesi; Marcello Ricciuti; Wanda Cifarelli; Marina Susi; Tommaso Fabrizio; Maria G Ferrari; Marica Ottaviani; Maria V Giulietti; Fabiana Merico; Michele Aieta
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: A case-controlled cohort study.

Authors:  Benjamin H L Howes; David I Watson; Chris Xu; Beverley Fosh; Maximiliano Canepa; Nicola R Dean
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  A body image scale for use with cancer patients.

Authors:  P Hopwood; I Fletcher; A Lee; S Al Ghazal
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England.

Authors:  Ranjeet Jeevan; David A Cromwell; John P Browne; Christopher M Caddy; Jerome Pereira; Carmel Sheppard; Kimberley Greenaway; Jan H P van der Meulen
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Patient-reported outcomes measured by BREAST-Q after implant-based breast reconstruction: A cross-sectional controlled study in Brazilian patients.

Authors:  Isabella de Carvalho Aguiar; Daniela Francescato Veiga; Thaline Figueiredo Marques; Neil Ferreira Novo; Miguel Sabino Neto; Lydia Masako Ferreira
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 4.380

8.  Body Image for Women: Conceptualization, Assessment, and a Test of its Importance to Sexual Dysfunction and Medical Illness.

Authors:  Barbara L Andersen; Joseph Legrand
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  1991

9.  A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures.

Authors:  Dunya M Atisha; Christel N Rushing; Gregory P Samsa; Tracie D Locklear; Charlie E Cox; E Shelley Hwang; Michael R Zenn; Andrea L Pusic; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21
View more
  7 in total

1.  The past, the present and the future of UK breast reconstruction-are our practices outdated in 2020?

Authors:  Primeera Wignarajah; Parto Forouhi; Charles M Malata
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

2.  Patient-Reported Outcomes and Aesthetic Results after Immediate Breast Reconstruction Using Human Acellular Dermal Matrices: Results of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational NOGGO-AWOGyn Study.

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Lea Beier; Andree Faridi; Christine Ankel; Barbara Krause-Bergmann; Stefan Paepke; Christine Mau; Maren Keller; Hans Joachim Strittmatter; Maria Margarete Karsten
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Free-Flap Breast Reconstructive Surgery over Time (PRO-BREST).

Authors:  Duveken B Y Fontein; Melanie Oros; Leonhard Held; Pietro Giovanoli; Andrea L Pusic; Nicole Lindenblatt
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.268

4.  Impact of Patient Primary Language upon Immediate Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

Authors:  Alison P Woods; Marianna V Papageorge; Susanna W L de Geus; Andrea Alonso; Andrea Merrill; Michael R Cassidy; Daniel S Roh; Teviah E Sachs; David McAneny; Frederick Thurston Drake
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Optimizing Treatment of Breast Cancer Related Lymphedema Using Combined DIEP Flap and Lymphedema Surgery.

Authors:  Edward I Chang
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2022-04-06

6.  Identifying breast cancer recurrence histories via patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  J David Beatty; Qin Sun; Daniel Markowitz; Jessica Chubak; Bin Huang; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 4.442

7.  Impact of a Music Intervention on Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Talita Uchoa Lima; Ed Carlos Rey Moura; Caio Márcio Barros de Oliveira; Rachel Jorge Dino Cossetti Leal; João Nogueira Neto; Emanuel Cabral Pereira; Raniere Victor Braga Nascimento; Eduardo José Silva Gomes de Oliveira; Plínio da Cunha Leal
Journal:  Integr Cancer Ther       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.279

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.