Anne F Klassen1, Laura Dominici2, Sarah Fuzesi3, Stefan J Cano4, Dunya Atisha5, Tracie Locklear6, Madelijn L Gregorowitsch2, Elena Tsangaris2, Monica Morrow3, Tari King2, Andrea L Pusic7. 1. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Modus Outcomes, Letchworth Garden City, UK. 5. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. 6. North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. apusic@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In breast cancer surgery, patient-reported outcome measures are needed to measure outcomes best reported by patients (e.g., psychosocial well-being). This study aimed to develop and validate a new BREAST-Q module to address the unique concerns of patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Phase 1 involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had BCT and clinical expert input to establish content for the BCT module. A field-test (phase 2) was performed, and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and examination of reliability and validity. Validation of the item-reduced scales in a clinical sample (phase 3) was conducted for further assessment of their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 women resulted in the addition of 15 new items across multiple existing BREAST-Q scales and the development of two new scales (Adverse Effects of Radiation and Satisfaction With Information-Radiation Therapy). Feedback from 15 patients and 5 clinical experts were used to refine the instructions, response options, and item wording. An RMT analysis of data from 3497 women resulted in item reduction. The final set of scales showed evidence of ordered response option thresholds, good item fit, and good reliability, except for the Adverse Effects of the Radiation Scale. Validity and reliability were further supported by the phase 3 data from 3125 women. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q BCT module can be used in research and clinical care to evaluate quality metrics and to compare surgical outcomes across all breast cancer surgery patients.
BACKGROUND: In breast cancer surgery, patient-reported outcome measures are needed to measure outcomes best reported by patients (e.g., psychosocial well-being). This study aimed to develop and validate a new BREAST-Q module to address the unique concerns of patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Phase 1 involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had BCT and clinical expert input to establish content for the BCT module. A field-test (phase 2) was performed, and Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used for item reduction and examination of reliability and validity. Validation of the item-reduced scales in a clinical sample (phase 3) was conducted for further assessment of their psychometric properties. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 women resulted in the addition of 15 new items across multiple existing BREAST-Q scales and the development of two new scales (Adverse Effects of Radiation and Satisfaction With Information-Radiation Therapy). Feedback from 15 patients and 5 clinical experts were used to refine the instructions, response options, and item wording. An RMT analysis of data from 3497 women resulted in item reduction. The final set of scales showed evidence of ordered response option thresholds, good item fit, and good reliability, except for the Adverse Effects of the Radiation Scale. Validity and reliability were further supported by the phase 3 data from 3125 women. CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q BCT module can be used in research and clinical care to evaluate quality metrics and to compare surgical outcomes across all breast cancer surgery patients.
Authors: Krishna B Clough; Raquel F D van la Parra; Helene H Thygesen; Eric Levy; Elisabeth Russ; Najeeb M Halabi; Isabelle Sarfati; Claude Nos Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M A Sprangers; M Groenvold; J I Arraras; J Franklin; A te Velde; M Muller; L Franzini; A Williams; H C de Haes; P Hopwood; A Cull; N K Aaronson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Walter P Weber; Savas D Soysal; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Virgilio Sacchini; Michael Knauer; Christoph Tausch; Nik Hauser; Andreas Günthert; Yves Harder; Elisabeth A Kappos; Fabienne Schwab; Florian Fitzal; Peter Dubsky; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Roland Reitsamer; Rupert Koller; Jörg Heil; Markus Hahn; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Jürgen Hoffmann; Christine Solbach; Christoph Heitmann; Bernd Gerber; Martin Haug; Christian Kurzeder Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Katherine B Santosa; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nadine R Taghian; Cynthia L Miller; Lauren S Jammallo; Jean O'Toole; Melissa N Skolny Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: C A Pinto; B Peleteiro; C S Pinto; F Osório; S Costa; A Magalhães; H Mora; J Amaral; D Gonçalves; J L Fougo Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.322
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: Charlotte Davies; Christopher Holcombe; Joanna Skillman; Lisa Whisker; William Hollingworth; Carmel Conefrey; Nicola Mills; Paul White; Charles Comins; Douglas Macmillan; Patricia Fairbrother; Shelley Potter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 2.692