Nikhil Panda1,2, Ian Solsky3,4, Becky Hawrusik3, Gang Liu5, Harrison Reeder5, Stuart Lipsitz3, Eesha V Desai3, Kurt W Lowery3, Kate Miller3, Michele A Gadd6, Carrie C Lubitz6, Barbara L Smith6, Michelle Specht6, Jukka-Pekka Onnela3,5, Alex B Haynes3,7. 1. Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard T.H. School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. nikhil.panda@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. nikhil.panda@mgh.harvard.edu. 3. Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard T.H. School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.
Authors: Saskia Litière; Gustavo Werutsky; Ian S Fentiman; Emiel Rutgers; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Erik Van Limbergen; Margreet H A Baaijens; Jan Bogaerts; Harry Bartelink Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eun Sook Lee; Myung Kyung Lee; Soo Hyun Kim; Jung Sil Ro; Han Sung Kang; Seok Won Kim; Keun Seok Lee; Young Ho Yun Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alessandro Boaro; Jeffrey Leung; Harrison T Reeder; Francesca Siddi; Elisabetta Mezzalira; Gang Liu; Rania A Mekary; Yi Lu; Michael W Groff; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Timothy R Smith Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2021-08-27
Authors: Nikhil Panda; Ian Solsky; Brandon J Neal; Becky Hawrusik; Stuart Lipsitz; Carrie C Lubitz; Chris Gibbons; Mary Brindle; Robert D Sinyard; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Christy E Cauley; Alex B Haynes Journal: Ann Surg Open Date: 2021-04-08