Literature DB >> 32097289

The Evolution of Breast Satisfaction and Well-Being after Breast Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Comparison to the Norm.

Lily R Mundy1, Laura H Rosenberger1, Christel N Rushing1, Dunya Atisha1, Andrea L Pusic1, Scott T Hollenbeck1, Terry Hyslop1, E Shelley Hwang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survival continues to improve, with women living longer after treatment. It is not well understood how long-term satisfaction and well-being differ following treatment or how types of reconstruction differ when compared to the norm.
METHODS: In a propensity-matched sample, the authors compared patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer patients at various time intervals from surgery with normative BREAST-Q data. All data were obtained using the Army of Women, an online community fostering breast cancer research. Breast cancer patients were stratified by surgical treatment and reconstruction type. Regression lines were estimated and differences in slope tested between cancer patients and noncancer controls.
RESULTS: The authors compared normative (n = 922) and breast cancer (n = 4343) cohorts in a propensity-matched analysis. Among the breast cancer patients, 49.4 percent underwent lumpectomy, 17.0 percent underwent mastectomy, 21.7 percent underwent implant reconstruction, and 11.9 percent underwent autologous reconstruction. Median time since surgery was 4.7 years, with 21.1 percent more than 10 years after surgery. At the time of survey, breast cancer patients reported higher Satisfaction with Breasts and Psychosocial Well-being scores compared to noncancer controls (p < 0.01), with the cohorts undergoing lumpectomy and autologous reconstruction both reporting higher scores than the normative controls. After mastectomy, scores averaged lower than the noncancer controls, but improved over time. However, all breast cancer groups reported significantly lower Physical Well-being scores than the noncancer cohort (all p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy or autologous reconstruction reported higher psychosocial well-being compared to noncancer controls. These differences were influenced both by time since treatment and by choice of surgical procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32097289      PMCID: PMC8917794          DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  22 in total

Review 1.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.

Authors:  Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Use of the BREAST-Q in clinical outcomes research.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Anne F Klassen; Stefan J Cano
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Assessment of cognitive and psychomotor function and rehabilitation of elderly people with prostheses.

Authors:  R S Hanspal; K Fisher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-04-20

4.  The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples.

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Breast Cancer and Reconstruction: Normative Data for Interpreting the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Lily R Mundy; Karen Homa; Anne F Klassen; Andrea L Pusic; Carolyn L Kerrigan
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  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

Review 7.  Health outcome and economic measurement in breast cancer surgery: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Stefan Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie Scott; Achilleas Thoma; David Feeny; Andrea Pusic
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.217

8.  Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes.

Authors:  Yassir Eltahir; Lisanne L C H Werners; Marieke M Dreise; Ingeborg A Zeijlmans van Emmichoven; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Breast Reconstruction Post Mastectomy: Patient Satisfaction and Decision Making.

Authors:  Sally K Ng; Rowena M Hare; Ronny J Kuang; Katrina M Smith; Belinda J Brown; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.539

10.  A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  2 in total

1.  Patient-reported outcomes among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing breast conservation versus single or double mastectomy.

Authors:  Catherine Pesce; Jennifer Jaffe; Kristine Kuchta; Katharine Yao; Mark Sisco
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Propensity Scoring in Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis and Best Practice Guide.

Authors:  Jacqueline J Chu; Meghana G Shamsunder; Shen Yin; Robyn R Rubenstein; Hanna Slutsky; John P Fischer; Jonas A Nelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-02-09
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.