Commentary--surgical decisions after breast cancer: can patients be too involved in decision making?

Effects of occupational therapy on quality of life in breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective was to discuss the impact of occupational therapy on different domains of quality of life in breast cancer patients. We performed a literature search to identify articles published before June 27, 2023, using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to discuss the impact of occupational therapy on different domains of quality of life in breast cancer patients.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a literature search to identify articles published before June 27, 2023, using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus.

METHODS

This study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Randomized controlled trials that reported the effects of occupational therapy on quality of life in breast cancer patients were identified. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and determined risks of bias. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. Galbraith plots, meta-regression analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were used to identify heterogeneity in treatment effects.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, with a total of 543 patients. The experimental group exhibited better global health (pooled SMD = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.251-1.028, P = .001), physical health (pooled SMD = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.251-1.028, P = .019), social health (pooled SMD = 0.251, 95% CI = 0.011-0.490, P = .040), and cognitive function (pooled SMD = 0.863, 95% CI = 0.266-1.460, P = .05) and improve fatigue (pooled SMD = -0.389, 95% CI = -0.586 to -0.192, P = .000), and role function (pooled SMD = 0.287, 95% CI = 0.029-0.546, P = .029) than the control group. The 2 groups exhibited comparable emotional health (pooled SMD = 0.243, 95% CI = -0.051 to 0.536, P = .105) and pain (pooled SMD = -0.312, 95% CI = -0.660 to 0.036, P = .079).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence shows that occupational therapy can improve the quality of life of breast cancer patients, especially their global health, physical health, social health, cognitive function, fatigue, and role function.

Health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction compared to total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present review evaluated health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes in surgical breast cancer survivors who received breast reconstruction (BR), breast-conservation surgery (BCS) or mastectomy (M), and whether HR-QoL domains across generic and disease/surgery-specific questionnaires are compatible. Six electronic databases were searched for appropriate observational studies. Standardized scores for different HR-QoL domains in the BR, BCS, and M treatment groups were extracted from each study for the purpose of a meta-analysis. Using Stata version 14.0, a random-effects meta-analysis model was adopted for each outcome variable to estimate the effect size, 95% CI-confidence intervals, and statistical significance. Sixteen of the 18 eligible studies with BR (n = 1474) and BCS (n = 2612) or M (n = 1458) groups were included in the meta-analysis. The BR group exhibited a better physical health (k = 12; 0.1, 95% CI 0.04, 0.24) and body image (k = 12; 0.50, 95% CI 0.10, 0.89) than the M group. However, the two groups exhibited comparable social health (k = 13; 0.1, 95% CI -0.07, 0.37), emotional health (k = 13; -0.08, 95% CI - 0.41, 0.25), global health (k = 7; 0.1, 95% CI - 0.01, 0.27), and sexual health (k =11; 0.2, 95% CI - 0.02,0.57). There was no clear evidence of the superiority of BR to BCS for all the six domains. These results suggest that HR-QoL outcomes in BR and BCS groups are better than the M group. Therefore, women opting for BR or BCS are likely to report fairly better HR-QoL outcomes than M. However, due to the significant heterogeneity observed in most BR versus BCS outcomes, developing a unified questionnaire incorporating both breast/surgery-specific and generic HR-QoL domains is warranted.

Older women's experience with breast cancer treatment decisions

The purpose of this study was to better understand older women's experience with breast cancer treatment decisions. We conducted a longitudinal study of non-demented, English-speaking women ≥ 65 years recruited from three Boston-based breast imaging centers. We interviewed women at the time of breast biopsy (before they knew their results) and 6 months later. At baseline, we assessed intention to accept different breast cancer treatments, sociodemographic, and health characteristics. At follow-up, we asked women about their involvement in treatment decisions, to describe how they chose a treatment, and influencing factors. We assessed tumor characteristics through chart abstraction. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses. Seventy women (43 ≥ 75 years) completed both interviews and were diagnosed with breast cancer; 91 % were non-Hispanic white. At baseline, women 75+ were less likely than women 65-74 to report that they would accept surgery and/or take a medication for ≥ 5 years if recommended for breast disease. Women 75+ were ultimately less likely to receive hormonal therapy for estrogen receptor positive tumors than women 65-74. Women 75+ asked their surgeons fewer questions about their treatment options and were less likely to seek information from other sources. A surgeon's recommendation was the most influential factor affecting older women's treatment decisions. In open-ended comments, 17 women reported having no perceived choice about treatment and 42 stated they simply followed their physician's recommendation for at least one treatment choice. In conclusion, to improve care of older women with breast cancer, interventions are needed to increase their engagement in treatment decision-making.

“Does That Make Me A Woman?”

Feminist scholars and activists writing about breast cancer care among women have highlighted the sexist and heterosexist assumptions often embedded in the medical management of breast cancer, and of mastectomy in particular. Despite these contributions, and some speculation that sexual minority women may be less interested in breast reconstruction, limited research explores sexual minority women’s lived experience of mastectomy and decision making about reconstruction. Thirteen lesbian and/or bisexual women who had undergone mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer participated in individual qualitative interviews exploring decisions to have, or not have, breast reconstruction. Reasons for/against reconstruction reflected themes identified in prior studies among heterosexual women. Although participants described sexual, gender, and political identities and orientations as influences on their decision making, for most participants, experiences with physicians who encouraged reconstruction and concerns about stigmatization of illness in romantic, professional, and social contexts were also central. Findings are interpreted through feminist dis/ability, medicalization, and existential frameworks.