Top

Published in:

01-02-2021 | Mastectomy | Breast Oncology

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery

Authors: Nikhil Panda, MD, MPH, Ian Solsky, MD, MPH, Becky Hawrusik, MS, Gang Liu, MS, Harrison Reeder, BA, Stuart Lipsitz, ScD, Eesha V Desai, BS, Kurt W. Lowery, BS, Kate Miller, PhD, MPH, Michele A. Gadd, MD, Carrie C. Lubitz, MD, MPH, Barbara L. Smith, MD, PhD, Michelle Specht, MD, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, DSc, Alex B. Haynes, MD, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 2/2021

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL).

Methods

In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients.

Results

Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8–152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (− 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (− 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.

Available only for authorised users

Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020989.CrossRefPubMed

Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, Düring M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2008;47(4):672–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860801971439.CrossRef

Litière S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(4):412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70042-6.CrossRefPubMed

Michael YL, Kawachi I, Berkman LF, Holmes MD, Colditz GA. The persistent impact of breast carcinoma on functional health status. Cancer. 2000;89(11):2176–2186. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001201)89:11 %3c 2176::aid-cncr5 %3e 3.0.co;2-6.CrossRefPubMed

Lee ES, Lee MK, Kim SH, et al. Health-related quality of life in survivors with breast cancer 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2011;253(1):101–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181f662ce.CrossRefPubMed

Abrahams HJG, Gielissen MFM, Schmits IC, Verhagen CAHHVM, Rovers MM, Knoop H. Risk factors, prevalence, and course of severe fatigue after breast cancer treatment: a meta-analysis involving 12 327 breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(6):965–974. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw099.CrossRefPubMed

Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008;27(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-27-32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lee CN, Chang Y, Adimorah N, et al. Decision making about surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.09.017.CrossRefPubMed

Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, et al. Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician–patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;18(3):479–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl456.CrossRef

10.

Onnela J-P, Rauch SL. Harnessing smartphone-based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(7):1691–1696. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Panda N, Solsky I, Haynes AB. Redefining shared decision-making in the digital era. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Torous J, Kiang MV, Lorme J, Onnela J-P. New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(2):e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5165.CrossRef

13.

Panda N, Solsky I, Huang EJ, et al. Passively collected smartphone sensor data to detect postoperative events after cancer surgery: a prospective, multicenter, proof-of-principle study. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):S159–S160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.352.CrossRef

14.

Panda N, Solsky I, Huang EJ, et al. Using smartphones to capture novel recovery metrics after cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4702.CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Armstrong KA, Coyte PC, Brown M, Beber B, Semple JL. Effect of home monitoring via mobile app on the number of in-person visits following ambulatory surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):622. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hyder JA, Hirschberg RE, Nguyen LL. Home discharge as a performance metric for surgery. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(2):96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1725.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Myles PS, Shulman MA, Heritier S, et al. Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: a prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e015828. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015828.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Yurkiewicz IR, Simon P, Liedtke M, Dahl G, Dunn T. Effect of fitbit and iPad wearable technology in health-related quality of life in adolescent and young adult cancer patients. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018;7(5):579–583. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2018.0022.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Petersen J, Austin D, Kaye JA, Pavel M, Hayes TL. Unobtrusive in-home detection of time spent out-of-home with applications to loneliness and physical activity. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf. 2014;18(5):1590. https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2013.2294276.CrossRef

20.

Panda N, Haynes AB. Prioritizing the patient perspective in oncologic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07753-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.CrossRef

22.

Barnett I, Onnela J-P. Inferring mobility measures from GPS traces with missing data. Biostatistics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxy059.CrossRef

23.

Panda N, Rattner DW, Morse CR. Third-time (“redo-redo”) anti-reflux surgery: patient-reported outcomes after a thoracoabdominal approach. Surg Endosc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07059-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

RAND. 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

25.

Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Karvouni A, Kouri I, Ioannidis JPA. Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2009;338:a3006. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):395–404. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012552211996.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2014;97(19):1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.o.00030.CrossRef

28.

Mehta CR, Patel NR, Tsiatis AA. Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence with ordered categorical data. Biometrics. 1984;40(3):819. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530927.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19(6):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1974.1100705.CrossRef

30.

Multiple comparisons—Handbook of Biological Statistics. http://www.biostathandbook.com/multiplecomparisons.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

31.

Petersen J, Austin D, Mattek N, Kaye J. Time Out-of-Home and Cognitive, physical, and emotional wellbeing of older adults: a longitudinal mixed effects model. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Wettstein M, Wahl H-W, Shoval N, et al. Out-of-home behavior and cognitive impairment in older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812459373.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Bade BC, Brooks MC, Nietert SB, et al. Assessing the correlation between physical activity and quality of life in advanced lung cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018;17(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735416684016.CrossRefPubMed

34.

de Mik SML, Stubenrouch FE, Balm R, Ubbink DT. Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;105(13):1721–1730. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–986. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.3.974.CrossRefPubMed

36.

FACT-B—Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast Cancer. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/functional-assessment-of-cancer-therapy-breast-cancer. Accessed 15 Oct 2019.

37.

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):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ, Ganz PA. Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer—taking stock. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(4):263–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.4.263.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Antonescu I, Scott S, Tran TT, Mayo NE, Feldman LS. Measuring postoperative recovery: what are clinically meaningful differences? Surgery. 2014;156(2):319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.005.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Smith A. U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015| Pew Research Center.

Title: Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery
Authors: Nikhil Panda, MD, MPH
Ian Solsky, MD, MPH
Becky Hawrusik, MS
Gang Liu, MS
Harrison Reeder, BA
Stuart Lipsitz, ScD
Eesha V Desai, BS
Kurt W. Lowery, BS
Kate Miller, PhD, MPH
Michele A. Gadd, MD
Carrie C. Lubitz, MD, MPH
Barbara L. Smith, MD, PhD
Michelle Specht, MD
Jukka-Pekka Onnela, DSc
Alex B. Haynes, MD, MPH
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Mastectomy
Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09004-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

CD36 Expression Is Associated with Cancer Aggressiveness and Energy Source in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Three Different Learning Curves Have an Independent Impact on Perioperative Outcomes After Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Comparative Analysis

Intraperitoneal CMP-001: A Novel Immunotherapy for Treating Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Gastrointestinal and Pancreaticobiliary Cancer

ASO Author Reflections: Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Related Tumor Necrosis is Associated with Worse Long-Term Outcomes

Prognostic Role of Mismatch Repair Status, Histotype and High-Risk Pathologic Features in Stage II Small Bowel Adenocarcinomas

Long-Term Outcome of Patients with Locally Advanced Clinically Unresectable Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Conversion Surgery after Induction Chemotherapy with Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil