Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after different axillary treatments in women with breast cancer:a 1-year longitudinal cohort study

Purpose: As life expectancy continues to rise, post-treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of breast cancer patients becomes increasingly important. This study examined the one-year longitudinal relation between axillary treatments and physical, psychosocial, and sexual wellbeing and arm symptoms. Methods: Women diagnosed with breast cancer who received different axillary treatments being axilla preserving surgery (APS) with or without axillary radiotherapy or full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with or without axillary radiotherapy were included. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, 6- and 12-months postoperatively using the BREAST-Q and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Mixed regression models were constructed to assess the impact of axillary treatment on HRQoL. HRQoL at baseline was compared to HRQoL at 6- and at 12-months postoperatively. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in the mixed regressions models. Except for ALND with axillary radiotherapy, no significant differences in physical and psychosocial wellbeing were found. Physical wellbeing decreased significantly between baseline and 6- and 12-months postoperatively (p &lt; 0.001, p = 0.035) and psychosocial wellbeing decreased significantly between baseline and 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.028) for ALND with axillary radiotherapy compared to APS alone. Arm symptoms increased significantly between baseline and 6 months and between baseline and 12 months postoperatively for APS with radiotherapy (12.71, 13.73) and for ALND with radiotherapy (13.93, 16.14), with the lowest increase in arm symptoms for ALND without radiotherapy (6.85, 7.66), compared to APS alone (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusion: Physical and psychosocial wellbeing decreased significantly for ALND with radiotherapy compared to APS alone. Shared decision making and expectation management pre-treatment could be strengthened by discussing arm symptoms per axillary treatment with the patient.</p

The added value of immediate breast reconstruction to health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients

Background: Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) may improve the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients. Guidelines recommend to discuss the option IBR with all patients undergoing mastectomy. However, substantial hospital variation in IBR-rates was previously observed in the Netherlands, influenced by patient, tumour and hospital factors and clinicians’ believes. Information provision about IBR may have a positive effect on receiving IBR and therefore QoL. This study investigated patient-reported QoL of patients treated with mastectomy with and without IBR. Methods: An online survey, encompassing the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire, was distributed to a representative sample of 1218 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy. BREAST-Q scores were compared between patients who had undergone mastectomy either with or without IBR. Results: A total of 445 patients were included for analyses: 281 patients with and 164 without IBR. Patients who had received IBR showed significantly higher BREAST-Q scores on “psychosocial well-being” (75 versus 67, p < 0.001), “sexual well-being” (62 versus 52, p < 0.001) and “physical well-being” (77 versus 74, p = 0.021) compared to patients without IBR. No statistically significant difference was found for “satisfaction with breasts” (64 versus 62, p = 0.21). Similar results were found after multivariate regression analyses, revealing IBR to be an independent factor for a better patient-reported QoL. Conclusions: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer with IBR following mastectomy report a better QoL on important psychosocial, sexual and physical well-being domains. This further supports the recommendation to discuss the option of IBR with all patients with an indication for mastectomy and to enable shared decision-making

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures may optimize shared decision-making for cancer risk management in BRCA mutation carriers

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, either after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) or during breast surveillance, to improve shared decision-making in their cancer risk management. Methods: Unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers at least one year after BPM followed by immediate breast reconstruction (BPM-IBR) or one year under surveillance were eligible. After informed consent, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and BREAST-Q were administered and compared between the different strategies. PROs were also compared to available normative data. Results: Ninety-six participants were analyzed in this study and showed significant differences between strategies in age, age at genetic testing, and time since BPM or starting breast surveillance. All HADS scores were below 8 suggesting no signs of anxiety or depression in both groups. Higher mean ‘Q-physical well-being’ scores were reported by the surveillance group (81.78 [CI 76.99–86.57]) than the BPM group (76.96 [CI 73.16 – 80.75]; p = 0.011). Overall, for both questionnaires better scores were seen when compared to age-matched normative data. Conclusions: No signs of anxiety or depression were seen in the surveillance or BPM-IBR group. Slightly better mean BREAST-Q scores were seen for the surveillance group in comparison to BPM-IBR, except for ‘Q-psychological well-being’. The difference in ‘Q-physical well-being’ was significantly worse for BPM-IBR. Approaches to obtain longitudinal PROs and reference values should be explored in the future, which could add value to shared decision-making in regards to breast cancer risk management in this specific patient population

Predictors of women's sexual outcomes after implant-based breast reconstruction

Objective: Although breast reconstruction has become an important treatment modality following mastectomy, few studies assessed predictors of postoperative sexual outcomes after breast reconstruction. Therefore, we aimed to study three sexual outcomes following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), and associate multiple biopsychosocial factors with these outcomes. Methods: Data collection was part of a multicenter prospective study on IBBR. A predictive model was tested including medical, background and psychological predictors, partner relationship factors and physical sexual function. Data collection included clinical and questionnaire data (preoperatively and 1 year following reconstruction) using the BREAST-Q Sexual well-being scale (BQ5), and questions regarding sexual dysfunction and sexual satisfaction questions (Female Sexual Function Index). Results: The study sample consisted of 88 women who underwent mastectomy and IBBR. Mean postoperative BQ5 scores were lower than before surgery (M = 58 [SD = 18] vs 65 [SD = 20]; P =.01, Wilks' Lamdba =.88). Sexual dysfunctions were related strongest to orgasm inability and vaginal lubrication issues. The tested models predicted 37%-46% of the sexual outcomes: sexual outcomes were mostly predicted by psychosocial well-being, physical sexual function and partner support. Preoperative sexual and psychosocial well-being were positively associated with postoperative sexual well-being (r = 0.45 and r = 0.47). Conclusions: Although moderately positive sexual outcomes were reported after IBBR, some women reported issues with vaginal lubrication, breast sensation and orgasm. Sexual dysfunctions were predicted by vaginal lubrication and medical treatments, while sexual well-being and satisfaction were more predicted by psychosocial well-being and partner support. We advocate supportive care that includes partners and psychosocial functioning to optimize sexual outcomes after IBBR

Complex skin cancer treatment requiring reconstructive plastic surgery: an interview study on the experiences and needs of patients

To provide patient-centered care, it is essential to explore what patients consider important and to adjust care accordingly. This may specifically be relevant for patients with complex skin cancer, for whom the care process is often more complicated and psychological and social problems may play a larger role. The objective was to explore the experiences and needs of patients who had undergone surgical treatment by a dermatologist for a complex skin cancer with a subsequent reconstruction by a plastic surgeon. An interview study was conducted among 16 patients who had undergone surgical treatment by a dermatologist and reconstruction by a plastic surgeon for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, or lentigo maligna. The interviews focused on patients’ experiences and needs regarding care using a predefined topic list. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and inductively analyzed using Atlas.ti. Patients reported a need for a skilled and friendly physician who tailors information and communication to their individual situation. A need for continuity of care and improved collaboration between healthcare providers was also emphasized. Furthermore, patients experienced complications and unmet expectations and expressed a need for shared decision-making at various steps throughout the treatment process (depending on age). Patients also considered completeness of tumor removal, follow-up visits with multiple specialists to be planned the same day and recognition of the psychological impact of the disease on the partner important. To improve patient-centered care for complex skin cancer patients, more efforts should be directed towards improving continuity of care and collaboration. Furthermore, it is advocated for physicians to be sensitive to the individual needs of patients and their partner and adjust information, communication and (supportive) care accordingly

The aesthetic items scale: A tool for the evaluation of aesthetic outcome after breast reconstruction

__Background:__ Valid tools to assess aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstructive surgery are scarce. Previously a professional aesthetic assessment scale was introduced, the Aesthetic Items Scale (AIS). We aim to determine if this method is a valid and reliable tool to assess aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery. __Methods:__ The study population was consenting women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy with subsequent implant-based breast reconstruction. The aesthetic outcome with regard to breast volume, shape, symmetry, scars, and nipple areola complex was rated on a 5-point scale using standardized photographs to give a summed total score. Photographs were evaluated by the patient, 5 plastic surgeons, and 3 mammography nurses. An overall rating of aesthetic outcome on a 1-10 scale was given separately. We determined the intraclass correlation coefficient and assessed interobserver agreement. To assess validity, we calculated the correlation between total score and overall rating of aesthetic outcome. __Results:__ Interobserver reliability was highest between plastic surgeons for the subitem and overall scores and ranged between 0.56 and 0.82. The summed score of the AIS correlates strongly with the overall rating in professionals but not in patients. __Conclusions:__ The AIS is a valid and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction by plastic surgeons. The results indicate that patients judge aesthetic outcome differently, taking into account factors that are not represented in the AIS. Professionals can use this method to evaluate surgical results, but other measurements are needed to map satisfaction of the patient with her breasts

The National Dutch Breast Implant Registry: user-reported experiences and importance

Background: Robust (inter-)national breast implant registries are important. For some, registries are an administrative burden, for others they represent a solution for the discussions involving breast implants. The DBIR is one of the first national, opt-out, clinical registries of breast implants, providing information for clinical auditing and product recall. Four years after its introduction, it is time to address users’ comments in order to keep improving quality of registration, and patient safety. This study assesses users’ feedback focusing on importance of registration, logistics and user experience, and areas of improvement. Methods: In May 2018, a standardized online study–specific questionnaire was sent out to all members of the Netherlands Society of Plastic Surgery. Descriptive statistics were reported in absolute frequencies and/or percentages. Results: A total of 102 members responded to the questionnaire (response rate, 24.2%). Of all respondents, 97.1% were actively registering in DBIR. Respondents rated the importance of registration in DBIR as 8.1 out of 10 points. Ninety-one respondents suggested improvements for the DBIR. All comments were related to registration convenience and provision of automatically generated data. Conclusions: Respondents believe that registration is highly important and worth the administrative burden. However, we should collectively keep improving accuracy, usability and sustainability of breast

Nationwide population-based study of the impact of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy on the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy

Background: Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within 6–12 weeks after mastectomy is recommended by guidelines. The aim of this population-based study was to investigate whether immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy reduces the likelihood of timely initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: All patients with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between 2012 and 2016 in the Netherlands were identified. Time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was categorized as within 6 weeks or after more than 6 weeks, within 9 weeks or after more than 9 weeks, and within 12 weeks or after more than 12 weeks. The impact of IBR on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy for these three scenarios was estimated using propensity score matching to adjust for treatment by indication bias. Results: A total of 6300 patients had undergone primary mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 1700 (27·0 per cent) had received IBR. Multivariable analysis revealed that IBR reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0·76, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 0·87) and 9 weeks (0·69, 0·54 to 0·87), but not within 12 weeks (OR 0·75, 0·48 to 1·17). Following propensity score matching, IBR only reduced the likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 6 weeks (OR 0·95, 0·90 to 0·99), but not within 9 weeks (OR 0·97, 0·95 to 1·00) or 12 weeks (OR 1·00, 0·99 to 1·01). Conclusion: Postmastectomy IBR marginally reduce