Giving meaning to patient reported outcomes in breast reconstruction after mastectomy - A systematic review of available scores and suggestions for further research

Linn Weick, Fredrik Brorson, Christian Jepsen, Mattias Lidén, Emmelie Widmark Jensen, Emma Hansson, Linn Weick, Fredrik Brorson, Christian Jepsen, Mattias Lidén, Emmelie Widmark Jensen, Emma Hansson

Abstract

Background: There are three patient reported outcome measure instruments (PROMs) that have adequate content validity for breast reconstruction, BREAST-Q, BRECON-31 and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23, and they all have been robustly validated. The aim of this study was to systematically review scores giving meaning to validated PROMs for breast reconstruction after mastectomy and discuss methods to enable interpretation of them.

Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the recommendations of PRISMA. Prospero CRD42021255874. Included articles had to meet criteria defined in a SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type). The included studies were critically appraised using the GRADE approach.

Results: Three articles were finally included in the review: two studies on scores for healthy controls and one on minimally important differences (MIDs), both of BREAST-Q. All of the studies were performed in North America. Only MIDs based on statistical characteristics, and not on what constitutes a relevant change for the patient, exist. The risk of bias was evaluated as very high and moderate, respectively, of inconsistencies as low, of indirectness as high, of imprecisions as low, and of publication bias as probably low.

Conclusions: The overall certainty of evidence for scores giving meaning to PROMs for breast reconstruction is low (GRADE ƟƟОО). More studies are needed to establish relevant healthy control scores and what constitutes a relevant clinical difference for patient-reported outcome measures for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research are suggested in the article.

Keywords: Breast reconstruction; PROM; Patient reported outcome; Plastic surgery; Quality of life.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Clinical implications of the findings and suggestions for further research.

References

    1. Potter S., Holcombe C., Ward J.A., Blazeby J.M., Group B.S. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1360–1371.
    1. Potter S., Thomson H.J., Greenwood R.J., Hopwood P., Winters Z.E. Health-related quality of life assessment after breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2009;96:613–620.
    1. Sharma K., Steele K., Birks M., Jones G., Miller G. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: an introduction and review of clinical applications. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83:247–252.
    1. Davies C.F., Macefield R., Avery K., Blazeby J.M., Potter S. Patient-reported outcome measures for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of development and measurement properties. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:386–404.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Osoba D., Wu A.W., Wyrwich K.W., Norman G.R. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383.
    1. Zhong T., Pusic A.L. Future of outcomes research in plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 2013;40:351–357.
    1. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Contr Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.
    1. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.L., Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.
    1. Arksey H., O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.
    1. Cooke A., Smith D., Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1435–1443.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Vist G.E., Kunz R., Falck-Ytter Y., Alonso-Coello P., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–926.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Vist G., Kunz R., Brozek J., Alonso-Coello P., et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias) J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:407–415.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Montori V., Vist G., Kunz R., Brozek J., et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1277–1282.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Kunz R., Brozek J., Alonso-Coello P., Rind D., et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1283–1293.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Kunz R., Woodcock J., Brozek J., Helfand M., et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1294–1302.
    1. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Kunz R., Woodcock J., Brozek J., Helfand M., et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–1310.
    1. Klifto K.M., Aravind P., Major M., Payne R.M., Shen W., Rosson G.D., et al. Establishing institution-specific normative data for the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a prospective study. Aesthetic Surg J. 2020;40:NP348–NP355.
    1. Mundy L.R., Homa K., Klassen A.F., Pusic A.L., Kerrigan C.L. Breast cancer and reconstruction: normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139 1046e-55e.
    1. Voineskos S.H., Klassen A.F., Cano S.J., Pusic A.L., Gibbons C.J. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:11e–20e.
    1. Cereijo-Garea C., Pita-Fernandez S., Acea-Nebril B., Rey-Villar R., Garcia-Novoa A., Varela-Lamas C., et al. Predictive factors of satisfaction and quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q((c)) J Clin Nurs. 2018;27:1464–1474.
    1. Wild D., Grove A., Martin M., Eremenco S., McElroy S., Verjee-Lorenz A., et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104.
    1. Bowen D.J., Alfano C.M., McGregor B.A., Kuniyuki A., Bernstein L., Meeske K., et al. Possible socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in quality of life in a cohort of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106:85–95.
    1. Fatone A.M., Moadel A.B., Foley F.W., Fleming M., Jandorf L. Urban voices: the quality-of-life experience among women of color with breast cancer. Palliat Support Care. 2007;5:115–125.
    1. Matthews H., Carroll N., Renshaw D., Turner A., Park A., Skillman J., et al. Predictors of satisfaction and quality of life following post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Psycho Oncol. 2017;26:1860–1865.
    1. Srinivasa D.R., Clemens M.W., Qi J., Hamill J.B., Kim H.M., Pusic A.L., et al. Obesity and breast reconstruction: complications and patient-reported outcomes in a multicenter, prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145 481e-90e.
    1. Mehta S.K., Olawoyin O., Chouairi F., Duy P.Q., Mets E.J., Gabrick K.S., et al. Worse overall health status negatively impacts satisfaction with breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2020;73:2056–2062.
    1. Mehta S.K., Sheth A.H., Olawoyin O., Chouairi F., Gabrick K.S., Allam O., et al. Patients with psychiatric illness report worse patient-reported outcomes and receive lower rates of autologous breast reconstruction. Breast J. 2020;26:1931–1936.
    1. Cella D., Bullinger M., Scott C., Barofsky I. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:384–392.
    1. Sprangers M.A., Moinpour C.M., Moynihan T.J., Patrick D.L., Revicki D.A. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting G. Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: a users' guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:561–571.
    1. Metcalfe K.A., Semple J., Quan M.L., Vadaparampil S.T., Holloway C., Brown M., et al. Changes in psychosocial functioning 1 year after mastectomy alone, delayed breast reconstruction, or immediate breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:233–241.
    1. Flitcroft K., Brennan M., Spillane A. Women's expectations of breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25:2631–2661.
    1. Cordeiro C.N., Clarke A., White P., Sivakumar B., Ong J., Butler P.E. A quantitative comparison of psychological and emotional health measures in 360 plastic surgery candidates: is there a difference between aesthetic and reconstructive patients? Ann Plast Surg. 2010;65:349–353.
    1. von Soest T., Torgersen L., Kvalem I.L. Mental health and psychosocial characteristics of breast augmentation patients. J Health Psychol. 2020;25:1270–1284.
    1. Schwartz C.E., Sprangers M.A. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1531–1548.
    1. Sprangers M.A., Schwartz C.E. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:1507–1515.
    1. Menez 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 Esthet. 2018;63:126–133.
    1. Anota A., Bascoul-Mollevi C., Conroy T., Guillemin F., Velten M., Jolly D., et al. Item response theory and factor analysis as a mean to characterize occurrence of response shift in a longitudinal quality of life study in breast cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcome. 2014;12:32.
    1. Santosa K.B., Qi J., Kim H.M., Hamill J.B., Wilkins E.G., Pusic A.L. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:891–899.
    1. Fracon S., Renzi N., Manara M., Ramella V., Papa G., Arnez Z.M. Patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction: implants Vs. Autologous tissues. Acta Chir Plast. 2018;59:120–128.
    1. Orr J.P., Sergesketter A.R., Shammas R.L., Thomas A.B., Cason R.W., Zhao R., et al. Assessing the relationship between anxiety and revision surgery following autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:24–33.
    1. Roberts A., Baxter N., Camacho X., Lau C., Zhong T. Once is rarely enough: a population-based study of reoperations after postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3302–3307.
    1. Wyrwich K.W., Bullinger M., Aaronson N., Hays R.D., Patrick D.L., Symonds T., et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:285–295.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться