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

Ishith Seth, Nimish Seth, Gabriella Bulloch, Warren M Rozen, David J Hunter-Smith, Ishith Seth, Nimish Seth, Gabriella Bulloch, Warren M Rozen, David J Hunter-Smith

Abstract

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.

Keywords: BREAST-Q; breast reconstruction surgery; mastectomy; patient-reported outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

© 2021 Seth et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of selected studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Response rate for completion of BREAST-Q questionnaire (%).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias assessment for included RCTs.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Breast cancer [Internet]; 2020. [cited September 5, 2021.]. Available from: . Accessed November 29, 2021.
    1. Harding C, Pompei F, Burmistrov D, Wilson R. Use of mastectomy for overdiagnosed breast cancer in the United States: analysis of the SEER 9 cancer registries. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;2019:e5072506.
    1. Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, Spanos WJ. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18(4):318–325.
    1. Dragun AE, Pan J, Riley EC, et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates: a 14-year report from a comprehensive cancer center. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(4):375–380.
    1. Heidari M, Shahbazi S, Ghodusi M. Evaluation of body esteem and mental health in patients with breast cancer after mastectomy. J Midlife Health. 2015;6(4):173.
    1. Arroyo JMG, López MLD. Psychological problems derived from mastectomy: a qualitative study. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;4(2011):e132461.
    1. Ilonzo N, Tsang A, Tsantes S, Estabrook A, Thu MAM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast. 2017;32:7–12.
    1. Bellavance EC, Kesmodel SB. Decision-making in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing women’s choices for mastectomy and breast conserving surgery. Front Oncol. 2016;29(6):74.
    1. Sun CS, Cantor SB, Reece GP, Fingeret MC, Crosby MA, Markey MK. Helping patients make choices about breast reconstruction: a decision analysis approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):597–608.
    1. Fingeret MC, Nipomnick SW, Crosby MA, Reece GP. Developing a theoretical framework to illustrate associations among patient satisfaction, body image and quality of life for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39(6):673–681.
    1. Cutress RI. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: guidelines for best practice [Internet]. In: Rainsbury D, Willett A, editors. British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons; 2012: 68.[cited September 5, 2021]: Available from: . Accessed November 29, 2021.
    1. Schmauss D, Machens H-G, Harder Y. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Front Surg. 2015;2:71.
    1. Weldring T, Smith SMS. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;4(6):61–68.
    1. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(5):278–300.
    1. Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(3):98e–106e.
    1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;28(346):f167.
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–353.
    1. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(4):823–837.
    1. Liu L, Branford O, Mehigan S. BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(8):e1904.
    1. Dean NR, Crittenden T. A five-year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: a cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(11):1469–1477.
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372):n71.
    1. Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019: 205–228. [cited May 4, 2021]. Available from: . Accessed November 29, 2021.
    1. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments. Res Syn Meth. 2021;12(1):55–61.
    1. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Health. 2015;13:147–153.
    1. Qureshi AA, Odom EB, Parikh RP, Myckatyn TM, Tenenbaum MM. Patient-reported outcomes of aesthetics and satisfaction in immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with implants and fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(9):999–1008.
    1. Casella D, Di Taranto G, Onesti MG, Greco M, Ribuffo D. A retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes in direct-to-implant and two-stages pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: BMI and radiotherapy as new selection criteria of patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(8):1357–1363.
    1. Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, et al. Direct-to-Implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5):869–877.
    1. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Association of fat grafting with patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(10):944–950.
    1. Davis GB, Lang JE, Peric M, et al. Breast reconstruction satisfaction rates at a large county hospital. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:S61–5.
    1. Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(1):e1217.
    1. Klifto KM, Aravind P, Major M, et al. Differences between breast cancer reconstruction and institutionally established normative data using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(6):1371–1379.
    1. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Effect of patient age on outcomes in breast reconstruction: results from a multicenter prospective study. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(6):745–754.
    1. Reinders FCJ, Young-Afat DA, Batenburg MCT, et al. Higher reconstruction failure and less patient-reported satisfaction after post mastectomy radiotherapy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction compared to immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer. 2020;27(3):435–444.
    1. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–899.
    1. Klement KA, Hijjawi JB, LoGiudice JA, Alghoul M, Omesiete-Adejare P. Microsurgical breast reconstruction in the obese: a better option than tissue expander/implant reconstruction? Plast. Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(3):539–546.
    1. Martinez-López JC, García-Espinoza JA, Flores-Soto D, et al. Patient satisfaction index and quality of life measurement with Breast-Q after breast reconstruction in a plastic surgery center in Mexico. J Biosci Med. 2021;9(6):94–105.
    1. Brito ÍM, Fernandes A, Andresen C, Barbosa R, Ribeiro M, Valença-Filipe R. Patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction: how much do timing and surgical technique matter? Eur. J Plast Surg. 2020;43(6):809–818.
    1. Rindom MB, Gunnarsson GL, Lautrup MD, et al. Good health-related quality-of-life and high patient-reported satisfaction after delayed breast reconstruction with pedicled flaps from the back. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(8):1752–1757.
    1. Ludolph I, Horch RE, Harlander M, et al. Is there a rationale for autologous breast reconstruction in older patients? A retrospective single center analysis of quality of life, complications and comorbidities after DIEP or ms-TRAM flap using the BREAST-Q. Breast J. 2015;21(6):588–595.
    1. Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S, et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1701–1709.
    1. Stein MJ, Arnaout A, Lichtenstein JB, et al. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: a randomized control trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(1):41–47.
    1. Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM, et al. Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):1091–1100.
    1. Casella D, Di Taranto G, Marcasciano M, et al. Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. Breast. 2018;39:8–13.
    1. Macadam SA, Ho AL, Cook EF Jr, Lennox PA, Pusic AL. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):761–771.
    1. Caputo GG, Zingaretti N, Kiprianidis I, et al. Quality of Life and early functional evaluation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a comparative study between prepectoral versus dual-plane reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021;21(4):344–351.
    1. Ghilli M, Mariniello MD, Camilleri V, et al. PROMs in post-mastectomy care: patient self-reports (BREAST-QTM) as a powerful instrument to personalize medical services. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(6):1034–1040.
    1. Sinha S, Ruskin O, D’Angelo A, McCombe D, Morrison WA, Webb A. 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. 2016;69(1):30–36.
    1. Song D, Slater K, Papsdorf M, et al. Autologous breast reconstruction in women older than 65 years versus women younger than 65 years: a multi-center analysis. Ann of Plast Surg. 2016;76(2):155–163.
    1. McCarthy CM, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer. 2010;116(24):5584–5591.
    1. Negenborn VL, Dikmans REG, Bouman M-B, Wilschut JA, Mullender MG, Salzberg CA. Patient-reported outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(2):e1654.
    1. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):293–302.
    1. Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast. 2017;33:44–49.
    1. Anagnostopoulos F, Myrgianni S. Body image of Greek breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy or breast conserving surgery. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2009;16(4):311–321.
    1. Koçan S, Gürsoy A. Body image of women with breast cancer after mastectomy: a qualitative research. J Breast Health. 2016;12(4):145–150.
    1. Duggal CS, Metcalfe D, Sackeyfio R, Carlson GW, Losken A. Patient motivations for choosing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70(5):574–580.
    1. Chun YS, Verma K, Rosen H, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):429–436.
    1. Dikmans REG, Negenborn VL, Bouman M-B, et al. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, Phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):251–258.
    1. Albornoz CR, Matros E, McCarthy CM, et al. Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(7):2159–2164.
    1. Koppiker CB, Noor AU, Dixit S, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction with autologous lower dermal sling and radiation therapy outcomes. Indian J Surg. 2019;81(6):543–551.
    1. Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR, Wyatt GE, Ganz PA. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(17):1422–1429.
    1. Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1205–1214.
    1. Gilbert E, Emilee G, Ussher JM, Perz J. Sexuality after breast cancer: a review. Maturitas. 2010;66(4):397–407.
    1. Spector DJ, Mayer DK, Knafl K, Pusic A. Women’s recovery experiences after breast cancer reconstruction surgery. J of Psychosoc Oncol. 2011;29(6):664–676.
    1. O’Connell R, DiMicco R, Khabra K, et al. Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):79–89.
    1. Davies C, Holcombe C, Skillman J, et al. Protocol: protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study). BMJ Open. 2021;11:4.
    1. Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, et al. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(11):1360–1371.
    1. Jaensson M, Dahlberg K, Nilsson U. Factors influencing day surgery patients’ quality of postoperative recovery and satisfaction with recovery: a narrative review. Perioperative Med. 2019;8(1):3.
    1. Berning V, Laupheimer M, Nübling M, Heidegger T. Influence of quality of recovery on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery: a prospective observational cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(9):1088–1096.
    1. Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures: quality of life in breast surgery. Breast J. 2010;16(6):587–597.
    1. Ong WL, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM, et al. A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):677–685.
    1. Lucas RE. Reevaluating the strengths and weaknesses of self- report measures of subjective well-being. In: E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.). Handbook of Well-Being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF publishers; 2018:12. doi:
    1. Ranieri J, Fiasca F, Guerra F, Perilli E, Mattei A, Di Giacomo D. Examining the post-operative well-being of women who underwent mammoplasty: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry. 2021;29(12):645102.
    1. Allen RJ, Sobti N, Patel AR, et al. Laterality and patient-reported outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction with free abdominal tissue: an 8-year examination of BREAST-Q data. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(5):964–975.
    1. Koslow S, Pharmer LA, Scott AM, et al. Long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implant reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3422–3429.
    1. Ménez T, Michot A, Tamburino S, Weigert R, Pinsolle V. Multicenter evaluation of quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction, a long-term retrospective study. Ann Chir Plast Esthét Elsevier. 2017;63(2):126–133.
    1. Razzano S, Marongiu F, Wade R, Figus A. Optimizing DIEP flap Insetting for immediate unilateral breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study of patient-reported aesthetic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):261e–70e.
    1. Hu ES, Pusic AL, Waljee JF, et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):1–8.
    1. Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(22):2499–2506.
    1. Shekhawat L, Busheri L, Dixit S, Patel C, Dhar U, Koppiker C. Patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction surgery and therapeutic mammoplasty: prospective evaluation 1-year post-surgery with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2015;6(4):356–362.
    1. Dieterich M, Angres J, Stubert J, Stachs A, Reimer T, Gerber B. Patient-reported outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction alone or in combination with a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh – a detailed analysis of the BREAST-Q and overview of the literature. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015;75(7):692–701.
    1. Sewart E, Turner NL, Conroy EJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh. BJS Open. 2021;5(1):zraa063.
    1. Eltahir Y, Bosma E, Teixeira N, Werker PMN, de Bock GH. Satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes of breast reconstruction: investigations into the correlation between the patients’ Breast-Q outcome and the judgment of panels. JPRAS Open. 2020;12(24):60–70.
    1. Ochoa O, Garza III R, Pisano S, et al. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following DIEP flap breast reconstruction: relationship with body mass index. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1589–1600.
    1. Spindler N, Ebel F, Briest S, Wallochny S, Langer S. Quality of life after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and simultaneous reconstruction using pre-pectoral silicone implants. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;13(15):741–750.
    1. Tan ML, Idris DB, Teo LW, et al. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014;1(1):22–32.
    1. Ou Z, Tang Y, Fu J, Doucette J, Murimi IB. PCN482 patient-reported outcome measures in breast cancer: a systematic review of EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-B, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 development and validation. Value in Health. 2019;22:S530.
    1. Nguyen J, Popovic M, Chow E, et al. EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B for the assessment of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(2):157–166.
    1. Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, et al. The EORTC Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23): translation and Validation study of the Iranian Version. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(2):177–184.
    1. Ashing-Giwa K, Rosales M. A cross-cultural validation of patient-reported outcomes measures: a study of breast cancers survivors. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(2):295–308.
    1. Ashing-Giwa KT, Padilla GV, Tejero JS, Kim J. Breast cancer survivorship in a multiethnic sample: challenges in recruitment and measurement. Cancer. 2004;101(3):450–465.
    1. Ramadhanty Z, Yarso K, Probandari A. Construct validity and reliability of Indonesian Version of RAND SF-36 quality of life questionnaire in breast cancer patients. Indonesian J Cancer. 2019;13:55.
    1. Hahn EA, Segawa E, Kaiser K, Cella D, Smith BD. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality of life instrument. JCO. 2015;33(15_suppl):e17753–e17753.
    1. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–986.
    1. Bella O, Cocchiara R, de Luca A, et al. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (FACT-B+4): Italian version validation. Clin Ter. 2018;169:e151–4.
    1. Krishnan L, Stanton AL, Collins CA, Liston VE, Jewell WR. Form or function? Part 2 objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy . Cancer. 2001;91(12):2282–2287.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa