| Literature DB >> 33804935 |
Magdalena Tarkowska1, Iwona Głowacka-Mrotek2, Tomasz Nowikiewicz3,4, Aleksander Goch1, Wojciech Zegarski3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of life of patients undergoing surgical treatment of breast cancer depending on the type of procedure involving the breast (mastectomy vs. breast conserving treatment) and axillary fossa (sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. axillary lymph node dissection). The prospective study was carried out in a group of 338 females undergoing breast cancer treatment. Study variables were assessed by means of a diagnostic survey using standardized QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires as well as the Acceptance of Illness Scale and Mini-MAC scales. The quality of life was assessed at threetime points: on the day before the surgical procedure (I assessment) as well as three and 12 months after surgery (II and III assessment). Statistically significant differences between study groups were observed in the overall quality of life subscale (I, II, III-p < 0.0001), physical functioning (I-p < 0.0001; II-p = 0.0413; III-p < 0.0001), role functioning (I-p = 0.0002; III-p < 0.0001), emotional functioning (III-p = 0.0082), cognitive functioning (I-p = 0.0112; III-p < 0.0001), social functioning (III-p < 0.0001), body image (I, II, III-p < 0.0001), and sexual functioning (I-p = 0.0233; III-p = 0.0011). In most symptomatic scales, significant (p < 0.05) differences were also noted. Mastectomy and limfadenectomy patients were significantly (p < 0.0001) more prone to present with destructive coping strategies one year after surgery. Breast conserving therapy is associated with better quality of life outcomes as compared to mastectomy. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with a lower intensity of adverse changes in multiple dimensions of patients' functioning.Entities:
Keywords: breastcancer; limfadenectomy; quality of life; sentinel lymph node biopsy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33804935 PMCID: PMC8037884 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10071339
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Scheme describing the exclusion of patients from the study.
Clinical and demographic characteristics of the study group (BCT vs. MAS).
| BCT ( | MAS ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | |||
| Operated side | left | 89 | 48.11% | 81 | 52.94% | χ2 = 0.78, |
| right | 96 | 51.89% | 72 | 47.06% | ||
| Neoadjuvant treatment | no | 171 | 92.43% | 86 | 56.21% | χ2 = 60.42, |
| yes | 14 | 7.57% | 67 | 43.79% | ||
| Staging | IA | 105 | 56.76% | 32 | 20.91% | χ2 = 80.57, |
| IIA | 58 | 31.35% | 45 | 29.41% | ||
| IIB | 20 | 10.81% | 30 | 19.61% | ||
| IIIA | 1 | 0.541% | 21 | 13.72% | ||
| IIIB | 1 | 0.541% | 25 | 16.34% | ||
| Adjuvant treatment | CHTH | 75 | 40.54% | 57 | 37.25% | χ2 = 0.38, |
| RTH | 185 | 100.0% | 92 | 60.13% | χ2 = 90.00, | |
| HTH | 146 | 78.92% | 104 | 67.97% | χ2 = 5.21, | |
| herceptin | 20 | 10.81% | 32 | 20.91% | χ2 = 6.57, | |
| none | 0 | 0.00% | 4 | 2.61% | χ2 = 4.89, | |
| ER | positive | 146 | 78.92% | 104 | 67.97% | χ2 = 5.21, |
| negative | 39 | 21.081 | 49 | 32.03% | ||
| PR | positive | 139 | 75.13% | 90 | 58.83% | χ2 = 10.20, |
| negative | 46 | 24.84% | 63 | 41.17% | ||
| HER2 | positive | 20 | 10.81% | 32 | 20.91% | χ2 = 6.57, |
| negative | 165 | 89.19% | 121 | 79.09% | ||
| Menopause | no | 40 | 21.62% | 51 | 33.33% | χ2 = 5.84, |
| yes | 145 | 78.38% | 102 | 66.67% | ||
| Family history | negative | 144 | 77.84% | 117 | 76.47% | χ2 = 0.09, |
| positive | 41 | 22.16% | 36 | 23.53% | ||
| Age | >35 | 4 | 2.16% | 4 | 2.61% | χ2 = 9.48, |
| 35 to 44 | 12 | 6.49% | 23 | 15.03% | ||
| 45 to 54 | 48 | 25.95% | 37 | 24.18% | ||
| 55 to 64 | 75 | 40.54% | 45 | 29.41% | ||
| 65 and over | 46 | 24.87% | 44 | 28.76% | ||
| Educational background | elementary | 23 | 12.43% | 12 | 7.84% | χ2 = 6.33, |
| vocational | 34 | 18.38% | 43 | 28.10% | ||
| secondary | 76 | 41.08% | 64 | 41.83% | ||
| higher | 52 | 28.11% | 34 | 22.22% | ||
| Area of residence | rural | 48 | 25.95% | 50 | 32.68% | χ2 = 4.33, |
| urban (population up to 50,000 residents) | 63 | 34.05% | 58 | 37.91% | ||
| urban (population above 50,000 residents) | 74 | 40.00% | 45 | 29.41% | ||
| Employment status | employed | 65 | 35.13% | 41 | 26.80% | χ2 = 10.56, |
| self-employed | 11 | 5.95% | 5 | 3.27% | ||
| housewife | 11 | 5.95% | 9 | 5.88% | ||
| retired | 75 | 40.54% | 61 | 39.87% | ||
| disability allowance or family pension | 12 | 6.49% | 24 | 15.69% | ||
| unemployed | 11 | 5.95% | 13 | 8.50% | ||
| Marital status | unmarried | 11 | 5.95% | 11 | 7.19% | χ2 = 2.34, |
| married | 131 | 70.81% | 109 | 71.24% | ||
| divorced | 20 | 10.81% | 10 | 6.54% | ||
| widowed | 23 | 12.43% | 23 | 15.03% | ||
| Socioeconomic status | very high | 9 | 4.86% | 5 | 3.27% | χ2 = 1.12, |
| high | 75 | 40.54% | 65 | 42.48% | ||
| medium | 90 | 48.65% | 71 | 46.40% | ||
| low | 11 | 5.95% | 12 | 7.84% | ||
CHTH—chemotherapy, RTH—radiotherapy, HTH—hormone therapy, ER—estrogen receptors, PR—progesterone receptors, HER2—human epidermal growth factor receptor, p—significance level, MAS—mastectomy, BCT—breast conserving treatment.
Type of procedure performed within the regional lymph system depending on the type of breast cancer surgery.
| BCT | MAS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| ALND | 52 | 28.11% | 89 | 58.17% | χ2 = 31.13, |
| SLNB | 133 | 71.89% | 64 | 41.83% | |
BCT—breast conserving treatment, MAS—mastectomy, SLNB—sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND—axillary lymph node dissection, p—significance level.
Scheme 1Quality of life results obtained by means of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire and the relationships between the groups (MAS + SNB, MAS + ALND, BCT + SNB, BCT + SNB) and assessment time points. M—mean, BCT—breast conserving treatment, MAS—mastectomy, SLNB—sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND—axillary lymph node dissection, p—significance level.
Scheme 2Quality of life results obtained by means of the QLQ-BR23 questionnaire and the relationships between the groups (MAS + SNB, MAS + ALND, BCT + SNB, BCT + SNB) and assessment time points. M—mean, BCT—breast conserving treatment, MAS—mastectomy, SLNB—sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND—axillary lymph node dissection, p—significance level.
Acceptance of illness in breast cancer patients and the relationships between the groups (MAS + SNB, MAS + ALND, BCT + SNB, BCT + SNB) and assessment time points.
| Time Point | Group | M | Me | SD | Kruskall-Wallis Test | POST-HOC (Dunn Bonferroni) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCT + ALND | BCT + SLNB | MAS + ALND | MAS + SLNB | |||||||
| General acceptance of illness | I | BCT + ALND | 28.62 | 29.00 | 7.47 | H = 37.41, | 0.5133 | 0.0089 | 1 | |
| BCT + SLNB | 30.62 | 32.00 | 7.42 | 0.5133 | <0.0001 | 0.3021 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 24.34 | 22.00 | 7.54 | 0.0089 | <0.0001 | 0.0062 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 28.48 | 29.00 | 7.19 | 1 | 0.3021 | 0.0062 | ||||
| II | BCT + ALND | 23.90 | 23.00 | 7.25 | H = 86.3292, | <0.0001 | 1 | 0.0725 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 30.38 | 31.00 | 5.77 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0056 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 22.98 | 22.00 | 4.86 | 1 | <0.0001 | 0.0002 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 27.03 | 27.00 | 5.13 | 0.0725 | 0.0056 | 0.0002 | ||||
| III | BCT + ALND | 27.77 | 28.00 | 6.85 | H = 123.4095, | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | 1 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 32.80 | 33.00 | 5.43 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 22.73 | 23.00 | 4.43 | 0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 27.44 | 26.50 | 5.54 | 1 | <0.0001 | 0.0001 | ||||
M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation, BCT—breast conserving treatment, MAS—mastectomy, SLNB—sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND—axillary lymph node dissection, p—significance level.
Adjustment to life with cancer in breast cancer patients and the relationships between the groups (MAS + SNB, MAS + ALND, BCT + SNB, BCT + SNB) and assessment time points.
| Time Point | Group | M | Me | SD | Kruskall-Wallis Test | POST-HOC (Dunn Bonferroni) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCT + ALND | BCT + SLNB | MAS + ALND | MAS + SLNB | |||||||
| CON | I | BCT + ALND | 44.10 | 44.00 | 4.24 | H = 11.6415, | 0.2222 | 1 | 0.4262 | |
| BCT + SLNB | 45.53 | 46.00 | 4.79 | 0.2222 | 0.0227 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 43.83 | 44.00 | 4.42 | 1 | 0.0227 | 0.0998 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 45.64 | 45.00 | 4.73 | 0.4262 | 1 | 0.0998 | ||||
| II | BCT + ALND | 42.75 | 43.00 | 4.14 | H = 10.932, | 0.064 | 0.0288 | 0.014 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 44.26 | 44.00 | 3.88 | 0.064 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 44.56 | 45.00 | 4.08 | 0.0288 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 44.66 | 46.00 | 4.77 | 0.014 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| III | BCT + ALND | 44.40 | 45.00 | 5.54 | H = 1.816, | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 44.58 | 44.00 | 4.78 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 43.65 | 44.00 | 5.09 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 44.00 | 43.00 | 4.82 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| DES | I | BCT + ALND | 30.71 | 32.00 | 5.90 | H = 0.7573, | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| BCT + SLNB | 30.45 | 30.00 | 6.30 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 30.74 | 31.00 | 6.56 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 30.16 | 30.00 | 5.65 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| II | BCT + ALND | 32.17 | 33.50 | 5.94 | H = 4.4939, | 0.2123 | 0.6629 | 1 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 30.17 | 30.00 | 6.17 | 0.2123 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 30.67 | 30.00 | 6.39 | 0.6629 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 30.75 | 30.00 | 5.91 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| III | BCT + ALND | 27.19 | 27.00 | 6.38 | H = 25.1802, | 1 | 0.0052 | 1 | ||
| BCT + SLNB | 26.38 | 26.00 | 6.43 | 1 | <0.0001 | 0.2348 | ||||
| MAS + ALND | 31.46 | 31.00 | 7.26 | 0.0052 | <0.0001 | 0.2007 | ||||
| MAS + SLNB | 28.89 | 29.00 | 8.08 | 1 | 0.2348 | 0.2007 | ||||
CON—constructive coping style, DES—destructive coping style, M—mean, Me—median, SD—standard deviation, BCT—breast conserving treatment, MAS—mastectomy, SLNB—sentinel lymph node biopsy, ALND—axillary lymph node dissection, p—significance level.