Casimir A E Kouwenberg1, Kelly M de Ligt, Leonieke W Kranenburg, Hinne Rakhorst, Daniëlle de Leeuw, Sabine Siesling, Jan J Busschbach, Marc A M Mureau. 1. Rotterdam, Utrecht, Enschede, and Almelo, The Netherlands From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam; Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation; Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente; Department of Psychiatry, Section of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Hospital Medisch Spectrum Twente/Hospital Group Twente; and Department of Surgery, Hospital Group Twente.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in quality-of-life outcomes after different surgical breast cancer treatment options, including breast reconstruction, are relevant for counseling individual patients in clinical decision-making, and for (societal) evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses. However, current literature shows contradictory results, because of use of different patient-reported outcome measures and study designs with limited patient numbers. The authors set out to improve this evidence using patient-reported outcome measures in a large, cross-sectional study for different surgical breast cancer treatment options. METHODS: Quality of life was assessed through the EQ-5D-5L, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23, and the BREAST-Q. Patients with different treatments were compared after propensity-weighted adjustment of pretreatment differences. The EQ-5D was used to value the effect of surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 1871 breast cancer patients participated (breast-conserving surgery, n = 615; mastectomy, n = 507; autologous reconstruction, n = 330; and implant-based reconstruction, n = 419). Mastectomy patients reported the lowest EQ-5D score (mastectomy, 0.805, breast-conserving surgery, 0.844; autologous reconstruction, 0.849; and implant-based reconstruction, 0.850) and functioning scores of the C30 questionnaire. On the BREAST-Q, autologous reconstruction patients had higher mean Satisfaction with Outcome, Satisfaction with Breasts, and Sexual Well-being scores than implant-based reconstruction patients. Complications in autologous reconstruction patients resulted in a substantially lower quality of life than in implant-based reconstruction patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the added value of breast conservation and reconstruction compared with mastectomy; however, differences among breast-conserving surgery, implant-based reconstruction, and autologous breast reconstruction were subtle. Complications resulted in poorer health-related quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Differences in quality-of-life outcomes after different surgical breast cancer treatment options, including breast reconstruction, are relevant for counseling individual patients in clinical decision-making, and for (societal) evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses. However, current literature shows contradictory results, because of use of different patient-reported outcome measures and study designs with limited patient numbers. The authors set out to improve this evidence using patient-reported outcome measures in a large, cross-sectional study for different surgical breast cancer treatment options. METHODS: Quality of life was assessed through the EQ-5D-5L, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23, and the BREAST-Q. Patients with different treatments were compared after propensity-weighted adjustment of pretreatment differences. The EQ-5D was used to value the effect of surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 1871 breast cancerpatients participated (breast-conserving surgery, n = 615; mastectomy, n = 507; autologous reconstruction, n = 330; and implant-based reconstruction, n = 419). Mastectomy patients reported the lowest EQ-5D score (mastectomy, 0.805, breast-conserving surgery, 0.844; autologous reconstruction, 0.849; and implant-based reconstruction, 0.850) and functioning scores of the C30 questionnaire. On the BREAST-Q, autologous reconstruction patients had higher mean Satisfaction with Outcome, Satisfaction with Breasts, and Sexual Well-being scores than implant-based reconstruction patients. Complications in autologous reconstruction patients resulted in a substantially lower quality of life than in implant-based reconstruction patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the added value of breast conservation and reconstruction compared with mastectomy; however, differences among breast-conserving surgery, implant-based reconstruction, and autologous breast reconstruction were subtle. Complications resulted in poorer health-related quality of life.
Authors: Jacqueline A Ter Stege; Daniela B Raphael; Hester S A Oldenburg; Martine A van Huizum; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven; Daniela E E Hahn; Regina The; Klemens Karssen; Eveline M L Corten; Irene S Krabbe-Timmerman; Menno Huikeshoven; Quinten P Q Ruhé; Nikola A N Kimmings; Wies Maarse; Kerry A Sherman; Arjen J Witkamp; Leonie A E Woerdeman; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: Health Expect Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.377
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
Authors: L S E van Egdom; K M de Ligt; L de Munck; L B Koppert; M A M Mureau; H A Rakhorst; S Siesling Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Justin M Broyles; Ethan M Balk; Gaelen P Adam; Wangnan Cao; Monika Reddy Bhuma; Shivani Mehta; Laura S Dominici; Andrea L Pusic; Ian J Saldanha Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-03-11