Decisional conflict in breast cancer patients considering immediate breast reconstruction

Patient Decision Aids for Breast Cancer Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer to become the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. There has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, struggle in making decisions regarding breast reconstruction has existed. Thus, a study of decision aids (DAs) needs to be conducted, and further studies are needed to promote better DAs. This review discusses how DAs can be used to help women make decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. In addition, the review was the first to compare different DA formats to determine which one is most effective.

METHODS

The authors searched for relevant studies published before October of 2022 in PubMed and Embase using the medical subject headings "breast reconstruction" and "decision aid." Demographic data and decision, outcomes, and instruments used for assessment were also collected. Risk of bias was measured by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

A network meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with a total of 1401 patients were included. A total of 90.9% participants presented usable results for evaluation of decisional conflict, and web-based DA (-0.3; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.05) showed significant improvement; 50.3% of participants provided results of decisional regret, and no subgroups showed significant reduction; 60.3% of participants contributed to results for knowledge, and web-based DA (0.61; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.21) showed the most positive effect. A total of 44.5% of participants were included for evaluation of satisfaction, and web-based DA (0.44; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72) revealed significant increase.

CONCLUSION

The review concluded that web-based DAs are the favorable format of DA.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Decisional Conflict in Patients with Advanced Laryngeal Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Decision-making for patients with a locally advanced laryngeal carcinoma (T3 and T4) is challenging due to the treatment choice between organ preservation and laryngectomy, both with different and high impact on function and quality of life (QoL). The complexity of these treatment decisions and their possible consequences might lead to decisional conflict (DC). This study aimed to explore the level of DC in locally advanced laryngeal carcinoma patients facing curative decision-making, and to identify possible associated factors.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective cohort study, participants completed questionnaires on DC, level of shared decision-making (SDM), and a knowledge test directly after counseling and 6 months after treatment. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Directly after counseling, almost all participants (44/45; 98%) experienced Clinically Significant DC score (CSDC >25, scale 0-100). On average, patients scored 47% (SD 20%) correct on the knowledge test. Questions related to radiotherapy were answered best (69%, SD 29%), whilst only 35% (SD 29%) of the questions related to laryngectomy were answered correctly. Patients' perceived level of SDM (scale 0-100) was 70 (mean, SD 16.2), and for physicians this was 70 (SD 1.7).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with advanced larynx cancer experience high levels of DC. Low knowledge levels regarding treatment aspects indicate a need for better patient counseling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 134:3604-3610, 2024.

Assessing the Content and Effect of Web-Based Decision Aids for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Web-based decision aids have been shown to have a positive effect when used to improve the quality of decision-making for women facing postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). However, the existing findings regarding these interventions are still incongruent, and the overall effect is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the content of web-based decision aids and its impact on decision-related outcomes (ie, decision conflict, decision regret, informed choice, and knowledge), psychological-related outcomes (ie, satisfaction and anxiety), and surgical decision-making in women facing PMBR.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 6 databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection, were searched starting at the time of establishment of the databases to May 2023, and an updated search was conducted on April 1, 2024. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and text words were used. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

In total, 7 studies included 579 women and were published between 2008 and 2023, and the sample size in each study ranged from 26 to 222. The results showed that web-based decision aids used audio and video to present the pros and cons of PMBR versus no PMBR, implants versus flaps, and immediate versus delayed PMBR and the appearance and feel of the PMBR results and the expected recovery time with photographs of actual patients. Web-based decision aids help improve PMBR knowledge, decisional conflict (mean difference [MD]=-5.43, 95% CI -8.87 to -1.99; P=.002), and satisfaction (standardized MD=0.48, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; P=.05) but have no effect on informed choice (MD=-2.80, 95% CI -8.54 to 2.94; P=.34), decision regret (MD=-1.55, 95% CI -6.00 to 2.90 P=.49), or anxiety (standardized MD=0.04, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.58; P=.88). The overall Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation quality of the evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that the web-based decision aids provide a modern, low-cost, and high dissemination rate effective method to promote the improved quality of decision-making in women undergoing PMBR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023450496; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=450496.

Decision-making experiences related to mastectomy: A descriptive qualitative study

AIM

To obtain an in-depth understanding of women's decision-making experiences related to mastectomy.

DESIGN

A descriptive qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with 27 Chinese women with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy at two tertiary hospitals in mainland China between September 2020 and December 2021 after obtaining the appropriate ethical approvals. Interviews were conducted in Mandarin. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Mean age of participants was 48 years (range 31-70). Most participants had low education, low monthly family income, had a partner and health insurance, had been diagnosed with early breast cancer, and had not undergone reconstructive surgery. Six categories related to decision-making experiences emerged: (1) Emotions affecting decision-making, (2) Information seeking for decision-making, (3) Beliefs about mastectomy and the breast, (4) Participation in decision-making, (5) People who influence decision-making, and (6) Post-decision reflection. Participants did not mention the role of nurses in their decision-making process for mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds valuable insights into the limited evidence on women's experience with decision-making about mastectomy from a Chinese perspective, which is important given the continuing high prevalence of mastectomy in many regions. Future studies from other countries and ethnic groups are recommended to gain diverse knowledge.

IMPACT

The findings of this study are useful for nurses and other healthcare professionals in the multidisciplinary team to better support women with breast cancer in their decision-making process regarding mastectomy. The findings could inform future interventions to support treatment decision-making and may be relevant to women living in similar socio-medical contexts to those in mainland China.

REPORTING METHOD

The study was reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Investigating the Difference in Quality of Life Between Immediate and Delayed Breast Cancer Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background/Aim

Immediate and delayed breast reconstruction remains a controversial topic. Apart from the clinical outcomes that have to be considered, there is a discrepancy of opinions regarding the potential differences in quality of life. It is essential to clarify this issue, in order to contribute to the reconstruction of the decision-making process. The aim of the study was to investigate potential differences in quality of life between immediate and delayed breast reconstruction patients.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was carried out, searching for case-control studies that have comparatively examined the effects of delayed and immediate reconstruction on quality of life. A literature search was carried out using the Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the STROBE checklist for case-control studies.

Results

Three studies were found showing that immediate reconstruction led to benefits for the quality of life of patients, while one study showed the opposite. A relevant study revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups, while another study, showed that immediate reconstruction entailed short-term benefits to quality of life. Four of the studies had debatable methodological approaches.

Conclusion

The inconsistent study findings cannot lead to any reliable conclusions regarding differences between immediate and delayed reconstruction in quality of life. It is possible that the results vary due to the time point that the comparisons made. Future research to this direction is warranted.

Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret in Head and Neck Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Head and neck cancer (HNC) often requires treatment with a major impact on quality of life. Treatment decision-making is often challenging, as it involves balancing survival against the preservation of quality of life and choosing among treatments with comparable outcomes but variation in morbidity and adverse events; consequently, the potential for decisional conflict (DC) and decision regret (DR) is high.

Objectives

To summarize the literature on DC and DR in HNC, to give an overview of its prevalence and extent, and to advise on clinical practice and future research.

Data Sources

Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 24, 2023, including all years of publication.

Study Selection

Eligible studies addressed DC and/or DR as primary or secondary outcomes with any instrument in HNC, except cutaneous tumors. Two mutually blinded researchers conducted screening and inclusion with support of an artificial intelligence assistant and conducted risk of bias (ROB) assessment.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for data extraction. ROB assessments were done using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) and CLARITY (quantitative). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to obtain pooled prevalence estimates for DC and DR when at least 4 sufficiently clinically homogeneous studies were available.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of DC (qualitative, Decisional Conflict Scale, SURE questionnaire) and DR (qualitative, study-specific questionnaires, Decision Regret Scale, Shame and Stigma Scale).

Results

Overall, 28 studies were included, with 16 included in meta-analyses for DR prevalence. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant DR above the cutoff score for validated questionnaires (11 studies; 2053 participants) was 71% (95% CI, 58%-82%; I2 = 94%), while for study-specific questionnaires (5 studies; 674 participants) it was 11% (95% CI, 5%-22%; I2 = 92%). Only 4 studies investigated DC, showing a prevalence of 22.6% to 47.5% above cutoff values. Derived overarching themes found in qualitative studies were preparation, shared decision-making roles, information, time pressure, stress of diagnosis, and consequences.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although limited data on DC and DR were available, the studies performed indicated that DC and DR are highly prevalent issues in HNC. Results suggest that study-specific questionnaires underestimated DR. The findings underscore the rationale to improve counseling and shared decision-making for this patient population.

Key factors in the decision-making process for mastectomy alone or breast reconstruction: A qualitative analysis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer to affect New Zealand women. Women diagnosed face several decisions regarding surgical treatment, including whether to undergo lumpectomy, mastectomy, or breast reconstruction. Reconstructive surgery adds an additional layer of complexity, with several reconstructive options, each associated with differing surgical and recovery times. Furthermore, surgical decisions are often made under time-pressure and significant diagnostic distress, therefore provision of good information to support decision-making is crucial to adequately inform women of their options. We interviewed 24 women who had undergone breast surgery within the preceding 12 months to assess the key factors leading to their decision to opt for their chosen surgical procedure. Interviews revealed that decision-making was complex and involved multiple factors. Women were ultimately confronted with assessing feminine identity versus survival. Whether opting for breast reconstruction or not, women were fearful of what surgery would involve and how their reconstructed breast or mastectomy scar might look following surgery. Shared decision-making between patient and clinician can mitigate this fear and provide women with a sense of autonomy over their health decisions. Provision of visual depictions of surgical outcomes was not routinely provided to those interviewed but was expressed as important to help women manage surgical expectations. Therefore our findings support the multi-modal presentation of diagnostic and treatment information to support decision-making. Likewise, women reported feeling unsupported in their decision not to undergo breast reconstruction, suggesting a need to develop resources to provide women with positive discussions about 'going flat'.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Direct-to-implant versus autologous tissue transfer: A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The effect of immediate implant and autologous breast reconstruction on complication rates has been studied extensively; however, the patient-reported outcomes for these procedures during immediate, one-stage reconstruction has yet to be comprehensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the patient-reported outcomes for immediate implant reconstruction with those associated with immediate autologous reconstruction to determine the advantages and disadvantages for each modality from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed between 2010 and 2021 was performed, and 21 studies containing patient-reported outcomes were selected for the analysis. A meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome scores was performed separately for immediate breast reconstruction using autologous tissue transfer and synthetic implants.

RESULTS

Nineteen manuscripts were included, representing data on a total of 1342 patients across all studies. The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their breasts was 70.7 (95% CI, 69.4-72.0) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 68.5 (95% CI, 67.1-69.9) after immediate implant reconstruction, showing a statistically significant difference in outcomes (p < 0.05). The pooled mean of patients' sexual well-being was 59.3 (95% CI, 57.8-60.8) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 62.8 (95% CI, 60.7-64.8) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.01). The pooled mean of patients' satisfaction with their outcome was 78.8 (95% CI, 76.2-81.3) after immediate autologous reconstruction and 82.3 (95% CI, 80.4-84.1) after immediate implant reconstruction (p < 0.05). The results of each meta-analysis were summarized on forest plots depicting the distribution of patient-reported outcome scores from each study.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate reconstruction with implants may have a similar or greater capacity to achieve patient satisfaction and improve patients' QoL compared to those associated with immediate reconstruction with autologous tissue transfer when both procedures are available.

Condensing of Low-Density Fat by Mechanical Process Improves Fat Retention and Reduces Oil Cyst Formation in Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Although autologous fat grafting is a useful adjunct for breast reconstruction, its indications remain limited as large-volume fat grafting results in high absorption and complication rates. Low-density fat includes small numbers of viable cells and considerable oil, resulting in nodules and oil cysts. This study evaluated the volumization effect and complications with combined fat grafting of condense low-density fat and high-density fat.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included 25 patients who underwent combined grafting of condensed low-density fat and high-density fat (CLDF + HDF) and 20 patients who underwent conventional Coleman fat grafting for breast reconstruction from December 2017 to January 2022. Retention rates and complications were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound rates. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a typical Likert scale. Photographs were taken and imageological examinations were performed before and after treatment.

OUTCOMES

Graft retention rate was higher in patients who underwent CLDF + HDF than Coleman fat grafting for breast reconstruction (38.40 ± 4.41% vs. 31.43 ± 5.43%, p <0.05). One patient in the CLDF + HDF grafting group, compared with twelve in the Coleman fat grafting group, developed oil cysts exceeding 1 cm. Patient satisfaction rate was higher in the CLDF + HDF grafting group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical processes can concentrate the cellular content of LDF and remove oil, condensing LDF to the level of HDF. Combined grafting of CLDF optimized by mechanical processing and HDF is effective for breast reconstruction, with a higher retention rate and a lower incidence of complications than conventional Coleman fat grafting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Invited Discussion on: The Impact of Reconstructive Modality and Postoperative Complications on Decision Regret and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Breast Reconstruction

One in eight women will have a lifetime diagnosis of confirmed breast cancer, and one in three of these women will undergo a mastectomy. About half of women undergoing mastectomies will opt for some type of breast reconstruction. Breast cancer itself and breast reconstruction bring physical changes that are accompanied by psychological changes of varying degrees. The decision process about cancer treatment and whether or not to perform breast reconstruction brings suffering. In the case of choosing to perform the reconstruction, deciding when to perform it and which surgical technique to choose from among several available is quite complex, and may result in regret. The author provides a brief literature review on this subject and comments on the work carried out by Cai and Momeni, comparing data and results.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic in resource-limited settings

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic. It has affected specialized medical services in unprecedented ways. Surgical decision making, always the most important aspect of care has taken on an added layer of complexity in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, recommendations for breast reconstruction during COVID-19 remain challenging and unclear. This article reviews the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests potential approaches that could be considered in the absence of validated strategies in breast reconstruction.