An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module

Quantifying the Impact of Prepectoral Implant Conversion on Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Conversion of subpectoral reconstruction to the prepectoral plane has been increasing in popularity. However, there is a paucity of research assessing patient-reported outcomes after this operation. The primary aim of this study was to examine patient-reported outcomes after conversion of implants from the subpectoral to prepectoral plane using the BREAST-Q.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively examined patients who underwent subpectoral-to-prepectoral implant conversion by three surgeons at two separate centers from 2017 through 2021. Patient demographics, primary indication for the conversion, surgical characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and BREAST-Q scores were obtained.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight breasts in 39 patients underwent implant conversion. The most common primary indications for implant conversion were chronic pain (41%), animation deformity (31%), and cosmetic concerns (28%). Average BREAST-Q scores improved significantly preoperatively to postoperatively in all the domains measured (satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with implants, physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being) ( P < 0.01). When examined by primary indication, all cohorts had significant preoperative to postoperative score improvement in satisfaction with breasts ( P < 0.001) and physical well-being ( P < 0.01) domains. Fifteen breasts (22%) developed postoperative complications, with implant loss in 9% of breasts.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of subpectoral implants to the prepectoral plane significantly improves BREAST-Q outcomes in all aspects, including patient satisfaction with breasts and implants, as well as psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being. Implant conversion to the prepectoral plane is becoming the authors' primary solution for most patients with chronic pain, animation deformity, or cosmetic concerns after subpectoral reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Secondary healthcare costs after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for women with breast cancer in England: population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy can improve the quality of life for women with breast cancer and rates are increasing. Long-term inpatient costs of care were estimated to understand the impact of different immediate breast reconstruction procedures on healthcare expenditure.

METHODS

Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data were used to identify women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in English National Health Service hospitals (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2015) and any subsequent procedures performed to revise, replace, or complete the breast reconstruction. Costs were assigned to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data using the Healthcare Resource Group 2020/21 National Costs Grouper. Generalized linear models were used to estimate mean cumulative costs for five immediate breast reconstruction procedures over 3 and 8 years, adjusting for covariates (age/ethnicity/deprivation).

RESULTS

A total of 16 890 women underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: implant (5192; 30.7 per cent), expander (2826; 16.7 per cent), autologous latissimus dorsi flap (2372; 14.0 per cent), latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (3109; 18.4 per cent), and abdominal free-flap reconstruction (3391; 20.1 per cent). The mean (95 per cent c.i.) cumulative cost was lowest for latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant reconstruction (€20 103 (€19 582 to €20 625)) over 3 years and highest for abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€27 560 (€27 037 to €28 083)). Over 8 years, expander (€29 140 (€27 659 to €30 621)) and latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (€29 312 (€27 622 to €31 003)) reconstructions were the least expensive, while abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€34 536 (€32 958 to €36 113)) remained the most expensive, despite having lower costs for revisions and secondary reconstructions. This was driven primarily by the cost of the index procedure (€5435 (expander reconstruction) to €15 106 (abdominal free-flap reconstruction)).

CONCLUSION

Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care Healthcare Resource Group data provided a comprehensive longitudinal cost assessment of secondary care. Although abdominal free-flap reconstruction was the most expensive option, higher costs of the index procedure need to be balanced against ongoing long-term costs of revisions/secondary reconstructions, which are higher after implant-based procedures.

Re-examining content validity of the BREAST-Q more than a decade later to determine relevance and comprehensiveness

PURPOSE

The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0-4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded.

RESULTS

Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q.

CONCLUSION

The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

Producing a preference-based quality of LIFE measure to quantify the impact of HYPOGLYCAEMIA on people living with diabetes: A mixed-methods research protocol

BACKGROUND

Assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including quality of life (QoL), is essential in diabetes research and care. However, a recent review concluded that current hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs have limited evidence of validity, reliability and responsiveness for assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in people living with diabetes. None of the PROMs identified could be used directly to inform the cost-effectiveness of treatments and interventions. There is a need for a new hypoglycaemia-specific QoL PROM, which can be used directly to inform economic evaluations.

AIMS

This project has three aims: (a) To develop draft PROM content for measuring the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in adults with diabetes. (b) To refine the draft content using cognitive debriefing interviews and psychometrics. This will result in a condition-specific PROM that can be used to quantify the impact of hypoglycaemia upon QoL. (c) To generate a preference-based measure (PBM) that will enable utility values to be calculated for economic evaluation.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, three-stage design is used: (a) Qualitative interviews will inform the draft PROM content. (b) Cognitive debriefing interview data will be used to refine the draft PROM content. The PROM will be administered in a large-scale survey to enable psychometric validation. Final item selection for the PROM will be informed by psychometric performance, translatability assessment and input from stakeholder groups. (c) A classification system will be generated, comprising a reduced number of items from the PROM. A valuation survey will be conducted to derive a value set for the PBM.

Incidence, risk factors, prevention and treatment of postmastectomy pain syndrome in breast cancer: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a common postoperative condition after breast cancer surgery.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence rate and risk factors of PMPS, and to propose prevention and treatment methods.

METHODS

The study included 1790 postoperative breast cancer patients from three hospitals from 2017 to 2021, of which 302 (13.0%) patients with PMPS were included in the study.

RESULTS

Age, breast surgery type, axillary surgery type and radiotherapy are the risk factors of PMPS. Age, radiotherapy and chemotherapy affect the pain degree of PMPS during movement.

CONCLUSIONS

For breast cancer patients with high risk factors, pain should be actively prevented during perioperative period. Oral pharmacological agents, multidisciplinary combination therapy, local anesthetics and regional anesthesia are the most common treatment of PMPS.

Protocol for a national cohort study to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: the brighter study

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Women undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.