Patient Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer: A Plea for the Silent and Forgotten.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Olivia Inez Solano, Cora Withers, Kirsten Allen, Chris Baliski
{"title":"Patient Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer: A Plea for the Silent and Forgotten.","authors":"Olivia Inez Solano, Cora Withers, Kirsten Allen, Chris Baliski","doi":"10.1016/j.clbc.2025.04.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are an increasing number of reports addressing patient reported outcomes (PRO's) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with reconstruction (MR), but few addressing mastectomy alone (MA). Patients' choice of procedure is often preference-based, making PRO's essential to inform decision making. The current research aims to evaluate PRO's associated with all three surgical procedures, along with patient participation rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with unilateral, nonrecurrent breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in the study (June 2020 to September 2023). Participants received the BREAST-Q (BQ) survey preoperatively (Q1), 2 to 6 weeks (Q2) and 1 year (Q3) postoperatively. Forced multiple regression analyses were performed to compare postoperative BQ scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>199 patients were eligible, with 73.4% (146/199) participating in the study. While MA had lower satisfaction with breast scores than BCS (B = -11.6), they were equivalent to those of MR (B = -16.5), with similar pathologic and treatment related factors. Physical well being was similar between all three procedures, while psychosocial well being scores were lower following MR (B = -15.5), but not MA. Patient age, BMI, and tumor size variably impacted BQ scores, but preoperative BQ scores independently correlated with postoperative scores across all domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patient response rates are consistent with the literature, but require improvement to ensure meaningful conclusions, generalizability of results, and comparisons between studies. Patients undergoing BCS reported the highest satisfaction and quality of life, with MA being noninferior to MR. Efforts to increase patient participation in PRO's are required, especially in those undergoing MA.</p>","PeriodicalId":10197,"journal":{"name":"Clinical breast cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical breast cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2025.04.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There are an increasing number of reports addressing patient reported outcomes (PRO's) following breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy with reconstruction (MR), but few addressing mastectomy alone (MA). Patients' choice of procedure is often preference-based, making PRO's essential to inform decision making. The current research aims to evaluate PRO's associated with all three surgical procedures, along with patient participation rates.

Methods: Patients with unilateral, nonrecurrent breast cancer were prospectively enrolled in the study (June 2020 to September 2023). Participants received the BREAST-Q (BQ) survey preoperatively (Q1), 2 to 6 weeks (Q2) and 1 year (Q3) postoperatively. Forced multiple regression analyses were performed to compare postoperative BQ scores.

Results: 199 patients were eligible, with 73.4% (146/199) participating in the study. While MA had lower satisfaction with breast scores than BCS (B = -11.6), they were equivalent to those of MR (B = -16.5), with similar pathologic and treatment related factors. Physical well being was similar between all three procedures, while psychosocial well being scores were lower following MR (B = -15.5), but not MA. Patient age, BMI, and tumor size variably impacted BQ scores, but preoperative BQ scores independently correlated with postoperative scores across all domains.

Conclusion: Patient response rates are consistent with the literature, but require improvement to ensure meaningful conclusions, generalizability of results, and comparisons between studies. Patients undergoing BCS reported the highest satisfaction and quality of life, with MA being noninferior to MR. Efforts to increase patient participation in PRO's are required, especially in those undergoing MA.

乳腺癌患者报告的结果:对沉默和被遗忘的请求。
背景:关于保乳手术(BCS)和乳房切除术重建(MR)后患者报告结果(PRO’s)的报道越来越多,但关于单独乳房切除术(MA)的报道很少。患者对手术的选择通常是基于偏好的,因此PRO对决策至关重要。目前的研究旨在评估与所有三种外科手术相关的PRO,以及患者的参与率。方法:前瞻性纳入单侧非复发性乳腺癌患者(2020年6月至2023年9月)。参与者在术前(Q1)、术后2 - 6周(Q2)和术后1年(Q3)接受BREAST-Q (BQ)调查。采用强制多元回归分析比较术后BQ评分。结果:199例患者入选,73.4%(146/199)的患者参与了研究。MA对乳腺评分的满意度低于BCS (B = -11.6),但与MR (B = -16.5)相当,病理和治疗相关因素相似。在所有三种手术之间,身体健康状况相似,而MR后的心理社会健康评分较低(B = -15.5),但MA并非如此。患者年龄、BMI和肿瘤大小对BQ评分有不同的影响,但术前BQ评分与术后所有领域的评分独立相关。结论:患者反应率与文献一致,但需要改进,以确保有意义的结论,结果的普遍性,以及研究之间的比较。接受BCS的患者报告了最高的满意度和生活质量,MA不逊于mr,需要努力增加患者对PRO的参与,特别是那些接受MA的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical breast cancer
Clinical breast cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
174
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Breast Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of breast cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to breast cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research reports from various therapeutic modalities, cancer genetics, drug sensitivity and resistance, novel imaging, tumor genomics, biomarkers, and chemoprevention strategies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信