Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The most recently developed module of the BREAST-Q, a validated patient outcome measure, is for patients who have undergone breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for cancer. This aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after BCT using BREAST-Q, investigate clinical risk factors for lower satisfaction and explore the relationship between patient satisfaction with the appearance of their breasts and the other domains of the BREAST-Q.

Methods

Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1–6 years were invited to participate at the time of their annual surveillance mammogram. Clinicopathological data were collected from an electronic database. Linear regression was used to evaluate risk factors for lower satisfaction. Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the relationship between domains.

Results

200 women completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 60 years (SD 11.1). Time from surgery was 35.5 months (SD 17.8). Median score for ‘Satisfaction with breasts’ was 68 (interquartile range 55–80). Lowest scores were for ‘sexual wellbeing’ (57, IQR 45–66). On multivariate analysis, BMI at the time of surgery (p = 0.002), delayed wound healing (p = 0.001) and axillary surgery (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for lower satisfaction. There was significant correlation between ‘Satisfaction with breasts’ and all other BREAST-Q domains.

Conclusion

High BMI, delayed wound healing and axillary surgery are risk factors for lower patient satisfaction. This first publication reporting the whole dataset for the BREAST-Q BCT will serve as a benchmark for future studies of patient satisfaction following BCT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pusic AL et al (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(2):345–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aaronson N et al (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11(3):193–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry (2009) Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Silver Spring. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2016

  4. Fosh B et al (2014) Cosmesis outcomes for sector resection for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Ann Surg Oncol 21(4):1271–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Atisha DM et al (2015) A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 22(2):361–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics. Accessed 18 Aug 2016

  7. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit (2008) A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England and Wales. First annual report of the national mastectomy and breast reconstruction audit. http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/research/surgical-research/docs/national-mastectomy-and-breast-reconstruction-audit-first-report

  8. Kummerow KL et al (2015) Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 150(1):9–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/2015/asps-recommends-the-use-of-plastic-surgery-specific-patient-reported-outcome-measures.html. 2015 Accessed 18 Aug 2016

  10. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. fourth annual report 2011 https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/research/surgical-research/docs/national-mastectomy-and-breast-reconstruction-audit-fourth-report-2011/view

  11. Heil J et al (2010) Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the breast cancer treatment outcome scale (BCTOS). Breast 19(6):470–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Waljee JF et al (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Al- Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (1999) Does cosmetic outcome from treatment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? Eur J Surg Oncol 25(6):571–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeevan R et al (2014) Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(10):1333–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hack TF et al (2006) Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 15(1):9–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Street RL, Voigt B (1997) Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life. Med Decis Mak 17(3):298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Street RL et al (1995) Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer 76(11):2275–2285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wei CH et al (2016) Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J 22(1):10–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sinha S et al (2016) Are overweight and obese patients who receive autologous free-flap breast reconstruction satisfied with their postoperative outcome? A single-centre study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(1):30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maiorino MI et al (2015) Sexual dysfunction in women with cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis of studies using the female sexual function index. Endocrine. doi:10.1007/s12020-015-0812-6

    Google Scholar 

  21. Aerts L et al (2014) Sexual functioning in women after mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer: a prospective controlled study. Breast 23(5):629–636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coriddi M et al (2013) Analysis of satisfaction and well-being following breast reduction using a validated survey instrument: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(2):285–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Coriddi M et al (2013) Analysis of satisfaction and well-being in the short follow-up from breast augmentation using the BREAST-Q, a validated survey instrument. Aesthet Surg J 33(2):245–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen WA et al (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(2):149–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cano SJ et al (2014) Interpreting clinical differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(1):173e–175e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cardoso MJ et al (2007) Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J 13(2):140–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Steeves RA et al (1989) Cosmesis and local control after irradiation in women treated conservatively for breast cancer. Arch Surg 124(12):1369–1373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor ME et al (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31(4):753–764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang HT et al (2008) Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J 28(2):165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS (1983) Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9(12):1807–1813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dewar JA et al (1988) Cosmetic results following lumpectomy, axillary dissection and radiotherapy for small breast cancers. Radiother Oncol 12(4):273–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rose MA et al (1989) Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer: long-term cosmetic results. Arch Surg 124(2):153–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fedorcik GG, Sachs R, Goldfarb MA (2006) Oncologic and aesthetic results following breast-conserving therapy with 0.5 cm margins in 100 consecutive patients. Breast J 12(3):208–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozmen T et al (2015) Factors affecting cosmesis after breast conserving surgery without oncoplastic techniques in an experienced comprehensive breast center. Surgeon 13(3):139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wazer DE et al (1992) Factors influencing cosmetic outcome and complication risk after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 10(3):356–363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vrieling C et al (2000) The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC ‘boost vs. no boost’ trial. EORTC radiotherapy and breast cancer cooperative groups. Radiother Oncol 55(3):219–232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hennigs A et al (2016) Change of patient-reported aesthetic outcome over time and identification of factors characterizing poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy: long-term results of a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 23(5):1744–1751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sarin R et al (1993) Therapeutic factors influencing the cosmetic outcome and late complications in the conservative management of early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27(2):285–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Olivotto IA et al (1996) Late cosmetic results of short fractionation for breast conservation. Radiother Oncol 41(1):7–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Olfatbakhsh A et al (2015) Evaluation of factors impacting cosmetic outcome of breast conservative surgery—a study in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16(6):2203–2207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hille-Betz U et al (2016) Late radiation side effects, cosmetic outcomes and pain in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy: risk-modifying factors. Strahlenther Onkol 192(1):8–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Goffman TE et al (2004) Lymphedema of the arm and breast in irradiated breast cancer patients: risks in an era of dramatically changing axillary surgery. Breast J 10(5):405–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pezner RD et al (1985) Breast edema in patients treated conservatively for stage I and II breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 11(10):1765–1768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sisco M et al (2015) The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol 111(6):663–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rauh C et al (2013) Factors influencing breast changes after pregnancy. Eur J Cancer Prev 22(3):259–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Peterson D et al (2015) Predictors of adverse cosmetic outcome in the RAPID trial: an exploratory analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91(5):968–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hernanz F et al (2011) Long-term results of breast conservation and immediate volume replacement with myocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap. World J Surg Oncol 9:159

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Immink JM et al (2012) Long-term cosmetic changes after breast-conserving treatment of patients with stage I-II breast cancer and included in the EORTC ‘boost versus no boost’ trial. Ann Oncol 23(10):2591–2598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chao LF et al (2014) Monitoring patient-centered outcomes through the progression of breast reconstruction: a multicentered prospective longitudinal evaluation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 146(2):299–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was possible due to a grant for a one-year fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England. We also thank the Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for their support with this project.

Funding

Royal College Surgeons of England one-year Research Fellowship grant (awarded to ROC). The Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research is a NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. This support is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgery, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Marsden Hospital, Orchard House, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK

    Rachel L. O’Connell, Rosa DiMicco, Nicola Roche, Peter A. Barry & Jennifer E. Rusby

  2. Department of Statistics, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK

    Komel Khabra

  3. Cancer Research UK Cancer Imaging Centre, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK

    Elizabeth A. O’Flynn & Nandita deSouza

  4. Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK

    Anna M. Kirby

Authors
  1. Rachel L. O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosa DiMicco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Komel Khabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth A. O’Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nandita deSouza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicola Roche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter A. Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anna M. Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jennifer E. Rusby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer E. Rusby.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Connell, R.L., DiMicco, R., Khabra, K. et al. Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160, 79–89 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3966-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3966-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation