Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2021

Open Access 01-01-2021 | Mastectomy | Reconstructive Oncology

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties

Authors: C. F. Davies, BSc (Hons) PhD, R. Macefield, MSc, K. Avery, PhD, J. M. Blazeby, MD, S. Potter, PhD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies.

Methods

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach.

Results

Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality.

Conclusions

BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–1123.
 
Literature
1.
Brewster A, Helzlsouer K. Breast cancer epidemiology, prevention and early detection. Curr Opin Oncol. 2001;13:420–5.CrossRef
2.
3.
Harcourt D, Rumsey N. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35(4):477–87.CrossRef
4.
Potter S, Harcourt D, Cawthorn S, et al. Assessment of cosmesis after breast reconstruction surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(3):813–23.CrossRef
5.
Potter S, Brigic A, Whiting PF, et al. Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(1):31–46.CrossRef
6.
Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(11):1360–71.CrossRef
7.
Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set’. Trials. 2014;15:247.CrossRef
8.
Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):745–53.
9.
Schmitt J, Apfelbacher C, Spuls PI, et al. The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: a methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(1):24–30.CrossRef
10.
Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.CrossRef
11.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.CrossRef
12.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–7.CrossRef
13.
14.
Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen, II, de Vet HC. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–23.CrossRef
15.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User Manual Version 1 Feb 2018. 2018.
16.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating the content validity of health-related Patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.CrossRef
17.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.CrossRef
18.
GRADE Handbook. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. 2013.
19.
Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–53.CrossRef
20.
Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):293–302.CrossRef
21.
Browne JP, Jeevan R, Pusic AL, et al. Measuring the patient perspective on latissimus dorsi donor site outcomes following breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(3):336–43.CrossRef
22.
Temple CL, Cook EF, Ross DC, Bettger-Hahn M, MacDermid J. Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON): dimensionality and clinical importance of breast symptoms, donor site issues, patient expectations, and relationships. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(3):209–16.PubMed
23.
Temple-Oberle CF, Cook EF, Bettger-Hahn M, Mychailyshyn N, Naeem H, Macdermid J. Development of a breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON-31): principal components analysis and clinimetric properties. J Surg Oncol. 2012;106(7):799–806.CrossRef
24.
Temple-Oberle CF, Ayeni O, Cook EF, Bettger-Hahn M, Mychailyshyn N, MacDermid J. The breast reconstruction satisfaction questionnaire (BRECON-31): an affirmative analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107(5):451–5.CrossRef
25.
Thomson HJ, Winters ZE, Brandberg Y, Didier F, Blazeby JM, Mills J. The early development phases of a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) module to assess patient reported outcomes (PROs) in women undergoing breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2013;49(5):1018–26.
26.
Winters ZE, Balta V, Thomson HJ, et al. Phase III development of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire module for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2014;101(4):371–82.CrossRef
27.
Winters ZE, Afzal M, Rutherford C, et al. International validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BRECON23 quality-of-life questionnaire for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2018;105(3):209–22.CrossRef
28.
Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(4):769–76.CrossRef
29.
Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC, et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(5):1014–25 (discussion 1026–1017).
30.
Cohen M, Evanoff B, George LT, Brandt KE. A subjective rating scale for evaluating the appearance outcome of autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(2):440–9.CrossRef
31.
Young-Afat DA, Gibbons C, Klassen AF, Vickers AJ, Cano SJ, Pusic AL. Introducing BREAST-Q computerized adaptive testing: short and individualized patient-reported outcome assessment following reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3):679–84.CrossRef
32.
Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2017;33:44–9.CrossRef
33.
Liu LQ, Branford OA, Mehigan S. BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;6(8):e1904.
34.
Potter S, Davies C, Holcombe C, et al. International development and implementation of a core measurement set for research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction: a study protocol. BMJ. 2020;10(1):e035505.
Metadata
Title
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties
Authors
C. F. Davies, BSc (Hons) PhD
R. Macefield, MSc
K. Avery, PhD
J. M. Blazeby, MD
S. Potter, PhD
Publication date
01-01-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Mastectomy
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08736-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2021 Go to the issue

Sarcoma

Disparities in Amputation Rates for Non-metastatic Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcomas and the Impact on Survival

Peritoneal Surface Malignancy

Systemic Pharmacokinetics of Oxaliplatin After Intraperitoneal Administration by Electrostatic Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) in Patients with Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases in the CRC-PIPAC Trial

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Should Signet Ring Cell Histology Alter the Treatment Approach for Clinical Stage I Gastric Cancer?

Endocrine Tumors

Implications of Conversion during Attempted Minimally Invasive Adrenalectomy for Adrenocortical Carcinoma

Thoracic Oncology

Prognostic Implication of Postoperative Weight Loss After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer

ASO Author Reflections

ASO Author Reflections: Ultra-Radical Resection in Ovarian Cancer: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?