Top

Published in:

01-12-2019 | Breast Cancer | Gynecologic Oncology

Psychometric validation of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS-12): a prospective cohort study

Authors: Manuel Feißt, Jörg Heil, Ilona Stolpner, Alexandra von Au, Christoph Domschke, Christof Sohn, Meinhard Kieser, Geraldine Rauch, André Hennigs

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 6/2019

Abstract

Purpose

The Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS) is a questionnaire to evaluate the aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery (BCS). The original BCTOS with its 22 items on three subscales was refined to a shorter, improved, and easier to administer patient-reported outcome measure, the BCTOS-12. The BCTOS-12 consists of 12 items on two distinct subscales, the Functional Status and the Aesthetic Status. The aim of this study was to validate the BCTOS-12 in a prospective cohort.

Methods

For this study, 239 breast cancer patients were included preoperatively, and 204 patients completed the BCTOS-12 and EORTC QLQ C30 BR23 shortly after their BCS, corresponding to a follow-up rate of 85%. The item-factor structure was examined by confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability was calculated by McDonald’s Omega for estimating internal consistency. The convergent validity was assessed by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between the related scales of the questionnaires.

Results

The BCTOS-12 showed a robust item-factor structure and a good internal consistency with McDonald’s Omega of 0.89 for the Aesthetic Status and 0.90 for the Functional Status. A high convergent and divergent validity was indicated by correlations between the subscales of the EORTC QLQ C30 BR23 and the BCTOS-12.

Conclusion

Overall, the results demonstrate a successful psychometric validation of the BCTOS-12. The BCTOS-12 is a refined, improved, and now validated, instrument. It can be used in clinical studies and routine management for the evaluation of the aesthetic and functional outcome after BCS.

Hennigs A et al (2016) Prognosis of breast cancer molecular subtypes in routine clinical care: a large prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 16(1):734CrossRef

Bray F et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):r394–r424CrossRef

Montazeri A (2008) Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 27(1):r1CrossRef

Nicholson RM, Leinster S, Sassoon EM (2007) A comparison of the cosmetic and psychological outcome of breast reconstruction, breast conserving surgery and mastectomy without reconstruction. The Breast 16(4):r396–r410CrossRef

Waljee JF et al (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):r3331–r3337CrossRef

Waljee J et al (2014) Patient expectations and patient-reported outcomes in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 155(5):r799–r808CrossRef

Ong WL et al (2017) A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative. JAMA Oncol 3(5):r677–r685CrossRef

Volders JH et al (2017) Cosmetic outcome and quality of life are inextricably linked in breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol 115(8):941–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24615 CrossRefPubMed

Veronesi U et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):r1227–r1232CrossRef

10.

Fisher B et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):r1233–r1241CrossRef

11.

Dahlback C, Ringberg A, Manjer J (2019) Aesthetic outcome following breast-conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health-related quality of life. Br J Surg 106(1):r90–r99CrossRef

12.

Erickson VS et al (2001) Arm edema in breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(2):r96–r111CrossRef

13.

Krishnan L et al (2001) 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 91(12):r2282–r2287CrossRef

14.

Madsen AH et al (2008) Arm morbidity following sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection: a study from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Breast 17(2):r138–r147CrossRef

15.

Nano MT et al (2005) Psychological impact and cosmetic outcome of surgical breast cancer strategies. ANZ J Surg 75(11):r940–r947CrossRef

16.

Sakorafas GH et al (2006) Lymphedema following axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Surg Oncol Oxford 15(3):r153–r165CrossRef

17.

Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MH (2017) Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(4):r658–r664CrossRef

18.

Wang HT et al (2008) Aesthetic outcomes in breast conservation therapy. Aesthet Surg J 28(2):r165–r170CrossRef

19.

Jagsi R et al (2015) Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg 261(6):r1198–r1206CrossRef

20.

Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA (2001) Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91(12):r2273–r2281CrossRef

21.

Heil J et al (2010) Aesthetic and functional results after breast conserving surgery as correlates of quality of life measured by a German version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS). Breast 19(6):r470–r474CrossRef

22.

Pukancsik D et al (2017) Objective decision making between conventional and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy: an aesthetic and functional prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(2):r303–r310CrossRef

23.

Hennigs A et al (2018) Development and psychometric validation of a shorter version of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS-12). The Breast 38:r58–r65CrossRef

24.

Sprangers MAG et al (1996) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol 14(10):r2756–r2768CrossRef

25.

Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer Qlq-C30—a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical-trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):r365–r376CrossRef

26.

Waldmann A et al (2007) The OVIS study: health related quality of life measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and-BR23 in German female patients with breast cancer from Schleswig-Holstein. Qual Life Res 16(5):r767–r776CrossRef

27.

Giesinger JM et al (2016) Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. J Clin Epidemiol 69:r79–r88CrossRef

28.

Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD (2007) The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res 16(1):19–31CrossRef

29.

Moosbrugger H, Schermelleh-Engel K (2012) Exploratorische (EFA) und Konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse (CFA). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Springer, Berlin, pp 325–343CrossRef

30.

Revelle WR (2017) psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research

31.

Rosseel Y (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat. Softw 48(2):1–36CrossRef

32.

Team RC (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org

33.

Irwing P, Booth T, Hughes DJ (2018) The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: a multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development. Wiley, New YorkCrossRef

34.

Cohen WA et al (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(2):149–162CrossRef

35.

O’Connell RL et al (2016) Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160(1):79–89CrossRef

36.

Weber WP et al (2017) First international consensus conference on standardization of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165(1):139–149CrossRef

37.

Hennigs A et al (2016) Change of patient-reported aesthetic outcome over time and identification of factors characterizing poor aesthetic outcome after breast-conserving therapy: long-term results of a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol 23(5):1744–1751CrossRef

Title: Psychometric validation of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS-12): a prospective cohort study
Authors: Manuel Feißt
Jörg Heil
Ilona Stolpner
Alexandra von Au
Christoph Domschke
Christof Sohn
Meinhard Kieser
Geraldine Rauch
André Hennigs
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05362-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Psychometric validation of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale (BCTOS-12): a prospective cohort study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is better than fresh embryo transfer in GnRH antagonist cycle in women with 3–10 oocytes retrieved: a retrospective cohort study

Prospective randomized trial comparing efficacy of letrozole step-up protocol with letrozole plus gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in patients with unexplained infertility

First trimester uterine artery pulsatility index levels in euploid and aneuploid pregnancies

Vaginal therapy of mild and moderate stress urinary incontinence using Er:YAG laser: a real treatment option

Correlation between fetal Doppler indices and neonatal acid–base status at birth in healthy appropriate for gestational age term fetuses

Long interpregnancy interval and mode of delivery