Laterality and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Free Abdominal Tissue: An 8-Year Examination of BREAST-Q Data

Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although studies have compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after breast conserving-therapy (BCT) and postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR), they often have been confounded by treatment or other factors that complicate a direct comparison. This study aimed to compare PROs after BCT and PMBR by using propensity score-matching analysis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent BCT or PMBR between 2010 and 2022 and completed the BREAST-Q were identified. Each BCT patient was matched to a PMBR patient using nearest-neighbor 1:1 matching with replacement for each BREAST-Q time point. Outcomes included all prospectively collected BREAST-Q domains preoperatively, at 6 months, and at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively. A 4-point difference was considered clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

For this study, 6215 patients (2501 BCT [40.2%] and 3714 PMBR [59.8%] patients) were eligible, and 2616 unique patients were matched. Preoperatively, 463 BCT and 463 PMBR patients were matched for analysis (6 months [443 matched pairs], 1 year [639 matched pairs], 2 years [421 matched pairs], 3 years [254 matched pairs]). At 6 months postoperatively, the BCT patients scored higher on all BREAST-Q domains than the PMBR patients (p < 0.05; differences > 4 points). At 1, 2, and 3 years, the patients who underwent BCT consistently had superior Satisfaction With Breasts, Psychosocial Well-Being, and Sexual Well-Being (p < 0.05), and the differences were clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSION

In this statistically powered study, the BCT patients reported higher quality of life than the PMBR patients in early assessment and also through 3 years of follow-up evaluation. Given the equivalency in survival and recurrence outcomes between BCT and PMBR, patients eligible for either surgery should be counseled regarding the superiority of BCT in terms of PROs.

BREAST-Q REACT: Qualitative Assessment of the Design, Functionality, and Clinical Utility of a New Score Interpretation Tool

BACKGROUND

The BREAST-Q real-time engagement and communication tool (REACT) was developed to aid with BREAST-Q score interpretation and guide patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the perspectives of patients and providers on the design, functionality, and clinical utility of REACT and refine the REACT based on their recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted three patient focus groups with women who were at least 6 postoperative months from their postmastectomy breast reconstruction, and two provider focus groups with plastic surgeons, breast surgeons, and advanced practice providers. Focus groups were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 18 breast reconstruction patients and 14 providers participated in the focus groups. Themes identified by thematic analysis were organized into two categories: (1) design and functionality, and (2) clinical utility. On the design and functionality of REACT, four major themes were identified: visual appeal and usefulness; contextualizing results; ability to normalize patients' experiences, noting participants' concerns; and suggested modifications. On the clinical utility of REACT, three major themes were identified: potential to empower patients to communicate with their providers; increase patient and provider motivation to engage with the BREAST-Q; and effective integration into clinical workflow.

CONCLUSION

Patients and providers in this qualitative study indicated that with some modifications, REACT has a great potential to elevate the clinical utility of the BREAST-Q by enhancing patient-provider communication that can lead to patient-centered, clinically relevant action recommendations based on longitudinal BREAST-Q scores.

Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review

Breast reconstruction (BR) aims to improve the satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Clinical studies using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can therefore provide relevant information to the patients and support decision-making. This scoping review was conducted to analyze recent trends in world regions, methods used, and factors investigated. The literature search was conducted in August 2022. Databases of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were searched for relevant English-language studies published from 2017 to 2022. Studies involving women with breast cancer who underwent BR after mastectomy and investigated PROs after BR using BR-specific scales were included. Data on the country, publication year, study design, PRO measures (PROMs) used, time points of surveys, and research themes were collected. In total, 147 articles met the inclusion criteria. BREAST-Q was the most widely used, contributing to the increase in the number and diversification of studies in this area. Such research has been conducted mainly in North America and Europe and is still developing in Asia and other regions. The research themes involved a wide range of clinical and patient factors in addition to surgery, which could be influenced by research methods, time since surgery, and even cultural differences. Recent BR-specific PROMs have led to a worldwide development of research on factors that affect satisfaction and QOL after BR. PRO after BR may be influenced by local cultural and social features, and it would be necessary to accumulate data in each region to draw clinically useful conclusion.

Donor-Site Satisfaction of DIEP and Latissimus Dorsi Flaps-A Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

 Understanding of donor-site morbidity and satisfaction after breast reconstruction is limited. There are few previous studies comparing satisfaction with different donor sites in breast reconstruction. This study aimed to examine the long-term patient-reported satisfaction with the donor site of latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps in comparison to the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. Further, a systematic review of previously published studies was conducted.

METHODS

 In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all women who underwent breast reconstructions with either LD or DIEP flap following mastectomy and radiotherapy between 2007 and 2017 were included; patient-reported satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module. For the systematic review, studies examining patient-reported abdominal satisfaction and well-being, and meeting the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) criteria were included.

RESULTS

 Eligible and responding participants were divided into the LD (n = 135 patients) and DIEP (n = 118 patients) flap groups. Impairment due to muscular weakness of the donor site was more common in the LD group than that of the DIEP group. Bulging was common in the DIEP group and increased over time. Regarding the esthetic appearance of the donor site, the patients in the DIEP group were less satisfied than the LD group. The systematic review showed that most of the patients were dissatisfied with their abdomen after the operation.

CONCLUSION

 Patients who have undergone DIEP flap for breast reconstruction are less satisfied with the donor-site esthetics than those who have undergone LD flap. Patient-reported abdominal bulging was common in the DIEP group and the number seemed to increase over time. Most patients were not satisfied with their abdominal scarring postoperatively, as per the systematic review. These results may indicate a need for more nuanced preoperative patient information, as well as improvements in the surgical management of the donor site, for DIEP flap reconstructions.

BREAST-Q and Donor Site Comparison in Bilateral Stacked Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Patients undergoing bilateral autologous breast reconstruction may benefit from increased flap volume using bilateral stacked deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and profunda artery perforator (PAP) flaps. Our aim was to characterize the donor site morbidity and patient-reported outcomes in four-flap breast reconstruction.

Methods:

Retrospective review was performed for all patients undergoing four-flap breast reconstruction by two surgeons between January 2010 and September 2021. Outcome measures including the BREAST-Q reconstructive module, the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), inpatient surgical site pain scores by numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and a postoperative subjective survey comparing donor sites were obtained. Four-flap BREAST-Q scores were compared with bilateral DIEP and bilateral PAP patients.

Results:

A total of 79 patients undergoing four-flap breast reconstruction were identified. Four-flap BREAST-Q scores (n = 56) were similar to bilateral DIEP and bilateral PAP reconstruction patients. Long-term survey outcomes from the LEFS demonstrated improved score trend after 6 months. Mean instances of donor site pain location recorded at the abdomen were significantly higher than the thigh during the postoperative admission. Subjective survey data revealed more long-term donor site pain at the PAP site, a patient preference for the DIEP donor site, and easier postoperative care for the DIEP donor site.

Conclusions:

This is the largest consecutive series of four-flap breast reconstruction outcomes reported to date. BREAST-Q scores in four-flap patients demonstrate overall patient satisfaction that is similar to both bilateral DIEP and bilateral PAP reconstruction patients. The DIEP donor site appears to be preferred by patients over the PAP donor site.

Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to update and synthesize new evidence on BREAST-Q questionnaire’s ability to reflect patient-reported outcomes in women who have undergone breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) following mastectomy.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clincaltrial.gov were searched for relevant studies from January 2009 to September 2021. Any interventional or observational studies that used BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes in the assessment of BRS following mastectomy were included.

Results

A total of 42 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Three were randomized controlled trials and 39 were observational studies. Compared with pre-operative scores, there was an improvement in all BREAST-Q outcome domains following BRS including ‘satisfaction with breasts’, “satisfaction with outcome” “psychosocial”, “physical”, and “sexual wellbeing”. Sexual well-being had the lowest BREAST-Q score both pre-and post-operatively (37.8–80.0 and 39.0–78.0, respectively). Autologous BRS reports higher satisfaction and overall wellbeing compared to implant-based BRS. BREAST-Q has a higher and narrow internal consistency of 0.81 to 0.96 compared with other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; EORTC-QLQ, FACT-B, BR-23, BCTOS). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is the only PROM which allows patients to reflect on their care, surgical outcomes, and satisfaction collectively.

Conclusion

This review highlights the fact that BREAST-Q can effectively and reliably measure satisfaction and wellbeing of breast cancer patients after BRS. Comparatively, sexual wellbeing shows poorer outcomes following BRS and more longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the basis for these findings. Compared to other PROMs, BREAST-Q is reliable and specific to breast cancer surgery. Overall, BREAST-Q can help clinicians improve their quality of service, understand patient experiences, and may be used as an auditing tool for surgical outcomes.

The impact of age on patient-reported outcomes after oncoplastic versus conventional breast cancer surgery

Purpose

Some studies have indicated age-specific differences in quality of life (QoL) among breast cancer (BC) patients. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after conventional and oncoplastic breast surgery in two distinct age groups.

Methods

Patients who underwent oncoplastic and conventional breast surgery for stage I-III BC, between 6/2011–3/2019, were identified from a prospectively maintained database. QoL was prospectively evaluated using the Breast-Q questionnaire. Comparisons were made between women < 60 and ≥ 60 years.

Results

One hundred thirty-three patients were included. Seventy-three of them were ≥ 60 years old. 15 (20.5%) of them received a round-block technique (RB) / oncoplastic breast-conserving surgeries (OBCS), 10 (13.7%) underwent nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM) with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP) reconstruction, 23 (31.5%) underwent conventional breast-conserving surgeries (CBCS), and 25 (34.2%) received total mastectomy (TM). Sixty patients were younger than 60 years, 15 (25%) thereof received RB/OBCS, 22 (36.7%) NSM/DIEP, 17 (28.3%) CBCS, and 6 (10%) TM. Physical well-being chest and psychosocial well-being scores were significantly higher in older women compared to younger patients (88.05 vs 75.10; p < 0.001 and 90.46 vs 80.71; p = 0.002, respectively). In multivariate linear regression, longer time intervals had a significantly positive effect on the scales Physical Well-being Chest (p = 0.014) and Satisfaction with Breasts (p = 0.004). No significant results were found concerning different types of surgery.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that age does have a relevant impact on postoperative QoL. Patient counseling should include age-related considerations, however, age itself cannot be regarded as a contraindication for oncoplastic surgery.

High-Efficiency Same-Day Approach to Breast Reconstruction During the COVID-19 Crisis

PURPOSE

As our hospitals conserve and re-allocate resources during the COVID-19 crisis, there is urgent need to determine how best to continue caring for breast cancer patients. During the time window before the COVID-19 critical peak and particularly thereafter, as hospitals are able to resume cancer operations, we anticipate that there will be great need to maximize efficiency to treat breast cancer. The goal of this study is to present a same-day protocol that minimizes resource utilization to enable hospitals to increase inpatient capacity, while providing care for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 crisis.

METHODS

IRB exempt patient quality improvement initiative was conducted to detail the operationalization of a novel same-day breast reconstruction protocol. Consecutive patients having undergone immediate breast reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between February and March of 2020 at Massachusetts General Hospital during the COVID-19 crisis. Peri-operative results and postoperative complications were summarized.

RESULTS

Time interval from surgical closure to patient discharge was 5.02 ± 1.29 h. All patients were discharged home, with no re-admissions or emergency department visits. No postoperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

This report provides an instruction manual to operationalize a same-day breast reconstruction protocol, to meet demands of providing appropriate cancer treatment during times of unprecedented resource limitations. Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction can be the definitive procedure or be used as a bridge to autologous reconstruction. Importantly, we hope this work will be helpful to our patients and community as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic.