Assessing Outcomes After Breast Surgery: Patient and Clinician Reported Outcomes

J. Kilkenny, Douglas C. Brown, Avril Gunning, M. Reis, E. Macaskill
{"title":"Assessing Outcomes After Breast Surgery: Patient and Clinician Reported Outcomes","authors":"J. Kilkenny, Douglas C. Brown, Avril Gunning, M. Reis, E. Macaskill","doi":"10.14740/JCS.303W","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Survival has significantly improved in women diagnosed with breast cancer, and as a result, it has become increasingly important to assess the psychological outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Interpreting the outcome based on the opinion of the operating surgeons may not reflect the opinions of the patient. The aim of this study was to assess clinician and patient reported outcomes of breast surgery at routine follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients previously treated for breast cancer attending routine follow-up breast clinic over a period of 5 weeks were invited to participate. Patients were first seen by a clinician for review (four breast surgeons and one clinical nurse specialist), and cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Harris Harvard scale. Patient reported outcomes were measured using the Hopwood body image scale 10-item questionnaire. Results: Of 105 patients, complete data were available for 84 patients. All patients were female with a median age of 65 years (range 32 - 83 years). Wide local excisions accounted for 54% of all surgeries (n = 45), mastectomies 26% (n = 22) and mastectomy with reconstruction 20% (n = 17). Patients’ scores ranged from 0 to 30 with a median score of 1; 9% of patients had a score of > 10. Clinician rating was “excellent” for 37%, 34% as “very good”, 22% as “good” and 5.9% as “poor”. There was a weak correlation of patient scores to clinician score (Spearman rho: 0.219; 95% CI: 0.005 - 0.414; P = 0.045). Conclusions: With standard breast surgery, the majority of patients seen at follow-up clinics were satisfied with their cosmetic outcome, with the most favorable outcomes in patients who had undergone breast conservation, with mastectomy and reconstruction yielding the poorest results. Patient reported outcomes are not reflected in the clinician assessment of cosmesis. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(2):46-51 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs303w","PeriodicalId":93115,"journal":{"name":"Journal of current surgery","volume":"26 1","pages":"46-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of current surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/JCS.303W","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Survival has significantly improved in women diagnosed with breast cancer, and as a result, it has become increasingly important to assess the psychological outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Interpreting the outcome based on the opinion of the operating surgeons may not reflect the opinions of the patient. The aim of this study was to assess clinician and patient reported outcomes of breast surgery at routine follow-up. Methods: Consecutive patients previously treated for breast cancer attending routine follow-up breast clinic over a period of 5 weeks were invited to participate. Patients were first seen by a clinician for review (four breast surgeons and one clinical nurse specialist), and cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Harris Harvard scale. Patient reported outcomes were measured using the Hopwood body image scale 10-item questionnaire. Results: Of 105 patients, complete data were available for 84 patients. All patients were female with a median age of 65 years (range 32 - 83 years). Wide local excisions accounted for 54% of all surgeries (n = 45), mastectomies 26% (n = 22) and mastectomy with reconstruction 20% (n = 17). Patients’ scores ranged from 0 to 30 with a median score of 1; 9% of patients had a score of > 10. Clinician rating was “excellent” for 37%, 34% as “very good”, 22% as “good” and 5.9% as “poor”. There was a weak correlation of patient scores to clinician score (Spearman rho: 0.219; 95% CI: 0.005 - 0.414; P = 0.045). Conclusions: With standard breast surgery, the majority of patients seen at follow-up clinics were satisfied with their cosmetic outcome, with the most favorable outcomes in patients who had undergone breast conservation, with mastectomy and reconstruction yielding the poorest results. Patient reported outcomes are not reflected in the clinician assessment of cosmesis. J Curr Surg. 2016;6(2):46-51 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs303w
评估乳房手术后的结果:患者和临床医生报告的结果
背景:乳腺癌女性患者的生存率显著提高,因此,从患者的角度评估心理结果变得越来越重要。根据手术医生的意见来解释结果可能不能反映患者的意见。本研究的目的是在常规随访中评估临床医生和患者报告的乳房手术结果。方法:邀请在常规乳腺门诊连续5周接受过乳腺癌治疗的患者参与。患者首先由一名临床医生进行复查(四名乳房外科医生和一名临床专科护士),然后使用哈里斯哈佛量表评估美容效果。患者报告的结果使用霍普伍德身体形象量表10项问卷进行测量。结果:105例患者中,84例患者资料完整。所有患者均为女性,中位年龄为65岁(32 - 83岁)。宽局部切除占所有手术的54% (n = 45),乳房切除术占26% (n = 22),乳房重建切除术占20% (n = 17)。患者评分范围为0 ~ 30分,中位数为1分;9%的患者评分大于10分。37%的临床医生评价为“优秀”,34%为“非常好”,22%为“好”,5.9%为“差”。患者评分与临床医生评分的相关性较弱(Spearman rho: 0.219;95% ci: 0.005 - 0.414;P = 0.045)。结论:对于标准乳房手术,大多数在随访诊所看到的患者对其美容结果感到满意,其中乳房保留患者的效果最好,乳房切除术和重建的效果最差。患者报告的结果不反映在临床医生对美容的评估中。contemporary surgery . 2016;6(2):46-51 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs303w
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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