Postmastectomy Functional Impairments.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This narrative review aims to offer a thorough summary of functional impairments commonly encountered by breast cancer survivors following mastectomy. Its objective is to discuss the factors influencing these impairments and explore diverse strategies for managing them. RECENT FINDINGS: Postmastectomy functional impairments can be grouped into three categories: neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, and lymphovascular. Neuromuscular issues include postmastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) and phantom breast syndrome (PBS). Musculoskeletal problems encompass myofascial pain syndrome and adhesive capsulitis. Lymphovascular dysfunctions include lymphedema and axillary web syndrome (AWS). Factors such as age, surgical techniques, and adjuvant therapies influence the development of these functional impairments. Managing functional impairments requires a comprehensive approach involving physical therapy, pharmacologic therapy, exercise, and surgical treatment when indicated. It is important to identify the risk factors associated with these conditions to tailor interventions accordingly. The impact of breast reconstruction on these impairments remains uncertain, with mixed results reported in the literature.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the BREAST-Q Sensation Module for Women Undergoing Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Reconstructive techniques for restoring sensation to the breast after mastectomy continue to evolve. The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure that can be used to evaluate outcomes of breast cancer treatments; however, it previously lacked scales to measure breast sensation. This paper outlines the development and validation of the BREAST-Q Sensation Module. METHODS: Phase 1 (January 2017 through December 2018) involved qualitative and cognitive interviews with women who had undergone breast reconstruction, as well as expert input, to develop and refine the scales. In phase 2 (March through June 2019), Love Research Army (LRA) members completed the scales, and Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was performed to examine the reliability and validity of the scales. RESULTS: In this study, 36 qualitative and 7 cognitive interviews were conducted, and input from 18 experts was obtained. Three scales were developed to measure breast Symptoms (e.g., throbbing, burning, tingling), Sensation (e.g., feeling with light touch, through clothing, sexually), and Quality of Life impact of sensation loss. In phase 2, 1204 LRA members completed the scales. Data for each scale fit the RMT model. Reliability was high, with Person Separation Index, Cronbach alpha, and intraclass correlation coefficient values of 0.81 or higher (with and without extremes) for all three scales. Mean scores were higher (better) on the Symptoms and Quality of Life impact scales for the participants with unilateral (vs. bilateral) and autologous (vs. alloplastic) reconstruction, and for the participants who were farther out from their reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The BREAST-Q Sensation Module can be used alone or in conjunction with other BREAST-Q scales to inform clinical care and to evaluate outcomes of new surgical approaches to restoration of breast sensation.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity Scale for Women Undergoing an Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of animation deformity on health-related quality of life, a content-specific, valid, and reliable patient-reported outcome measure is needed. This report describes the development and validation of the BREAST-Q Animation Deformity scale. METHODS: Women with breast cancer who had an implant-based reconstruction provided data. In phase 1 (January 2017 and December 2018), qualitive and cognitive patient interviews and expert input were used to develop and refine scale content. In phase 2 (March to June 2019), a field test study with members of the Love Research Army (LRA) was conducted. Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine psychometric properties. RESULTS: In phase 1 of the study, qualitative (n = 11) and cognitive (n = 4) interview data and expert input (n = 9) led to the development of a 12-item scale measuring animation deformity. In phase 2, 651 LRA members provided data and 349 participated in a test-retest study. In the RMT analysis, the data fit the Rasch model (X2(96) = 104.06; p = 0.27). The scale's reliability was high, with person separation index and Cronbach alpha values with/without extremes of ≥ 0.84 and ≥ 0.92 respectively, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94). Mean scores on the Animation Deformity scale varied as predicted across subgroups of participants who reported differing amounts of change in breast appearance when their arms were lifted overhead or when they lifted something heavy, and for increasing happiness with the overall outcome of their breast reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The 12-item Animation Deformity scale forms a new scale in the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module that can be used in comparative effectiveness research or to inform clinical care.

Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Outcomes Following Surgery in Women with Unilateral Nonhereditary Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Rates of bilateral mastectomy are rising in women with unilateral, nonhereditary breast cancer. We aim to characterize how psychosocial outcomes evolve after breast cancer surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of women with unilateral, sporadic stage 0-III breast cancer at University Health Network in Toronto, Canada between 2014 and 2017. Women completed validated psychosocial questionnaires (BREAST-Q, Impact of Event Scale, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale) preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months following surgery. Change in psychosocial scores was assessed between surgical groups using linear mixed models, controlling for age, stage, and adjuvant treatments. P < .05 were significant. RESULTS: A total of 475 women underwent unilateral lumpectomy (42.5%), unilateral mastectomy (38.3%), and bilateral mastectomy (19.2%). There was a significant interaction (P < .0001) between procedure and time for breast satisfaction, psychosocial and physical well-being. Women having unilateral lumpectomy had higher breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being scores at 6 and 12 months after surgery compared with either unilateral or bilateral mastectomy, with no difference between the latter two groups. Physical well-being declined in all groups over time; scores were not better in women having bilateral mastectomy. While sexual well-being scores remained stable in the unilateral lumpectomy group, scores declined similarly in both unilateral and bilateral mastectomy groups over time. Cancer-related distress, anxiety, and depression scores declined significantly after surgery, regardless of surgical procedure (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial outcomes are not improved with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer. Our data may inform women considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Development and Psychometric Validation of BREAST-Q Scales Measuring Cancer Worry, Fatigue, and Impact on Work.

BACKGROUND: The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to develop new BREAST-Q scales to measure Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. METHODS: Data were collected between January 2017 and November 2019. Phase 1 (qualitative) included participants from Canada and the USA, pre/post any type of breast cancer treatment (surgery, adjuvant, neoadjuvant). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded line-by-line. New scales were drafted and refined through cognitive interviews and expert input. Phase 2 (field-test study) involved USA members of the Love Research Army (LRA). Rasch measurement theory analysis was used to examine reliability and validity. RESULTS: In phase 1, 57 women were interviewed. Three concepts were identified as important to the breast cancer experience that are not currently covered in the BREAST-Q and developed into scales, i.e., Cancer Worry, Fatigue and Impact on Work. Feedback from nine women and 23 experts was used to establish content validity. The scales were field-tested in the LRA sample (n = 1680), of whom 1006 completed a test-retest. Reliability was > 0.81 for the person separation index, > 0.89 for Cronbach's alpha and > 0.83 for interclass correlation coefficients. Lower scores on all three scales were significantly associated with being closer in time to diagnosis and having a higher cancer stage at diagnosis (p < 0.001 on ANOVA). CONCLUSION: These new scales expand the BREAST-Q measurement system and provide a means to evaluate additional important outcomes for breast cancer patients in clinical care and research.

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

BACKGROUND: Generic preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each. CONCLUSION: The field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

Early Postoperative Complications From National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: A Closer Examination of Timing and Technique of Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent surge in rates of immediate breast reconstruction, there is a paucity of large multicenter studies to compare differences in morbidity after immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction. This study used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to study the association between timing of breast reconstruction and complication rates, stratified by reconstructive modality. STUDY DESIGN: The NSQIP database was used to identify breast reconstructions from 2005 to 2012. Rates of major complications were compared by timing within each reconstructive modality (implant vs autologous). Cohort differences in baseline characteristics and variables associated with increased complication rates were identified in bivariate analyses. A multivariable model was created to compare the association between the timing of reconstruction and major complications. RESULTS: Of 24,506 postmastectomy reconstructions, 85.8% were immediate, 14.2% were delayed, 84% were implant, and 16% were autologous reconstructions. Overall, 10.0% of patients suffered a major complication. After stratification, only implant reconstructions showed a statistically higher complication rate with immediate (8.8%) reconstruction compared with delayed (5.3%) (odds ratio, 1.7, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in complication rates between autologous immediate (18.4%) or delayed (19.0%) reconstructions. After controlling for baseline cohort differences and other risk factors, immediate reconstruction remained as an independent significant predictor of major complications in implant reconstructions (odds ratio, 1.8, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction is associated with a significantly higher rate of major complications in implant reconstruction but not in autologous reconstruction. It is important to include these findings in the routine preoperative surgeon-patient discussion of reconstructive options.

Preconsultation Educational Group Intervention Can Address the Knowledge Gap in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Whether to undergo postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is a challenging, preference-sensitive decision. It is therefore paramount to optimize decision quality through ensuring patients' knowledge and aligning treatments with their personal preferences. This study assessed the effects of a preconsultation educational group intervention (PEGI) on patient knowledge, state-trait anxiety, and decisional conflict (patient uncertainty in decision making) during the decision-making process. METHODS: This phase 3 randomized controlled trial assessed effects of a PEGI in women without active breast cancer undergoing delayed PMBR, or prophylactic mastectomy with immediate PMBR. Both groups underwent routine education before consultation. In addition, the intervention group underwent a PEGI composed of presentations from a plastic surgeon and nurse, a value clarification exercise, and shared experiences from PMBR patients before the consultation with the plastic surgeon. Before and 1-week after consultation, outcome measures were assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the BREAST-Q. RESULTS: Of the 219 women deemed eligible, a total of 156 women were recruited and randomized. Treatment fidelity was 96% and retention was 88%. At baseline, there were no significant differences in terms of demographic or clinical status, knowledge, state-trait anxiety, and decisional conflict. Patient knowledge about PMBR improved in both groups; however, the degree of knowledge attainment was significantly greater in the PEGI group (24.5% improvement in the intervention group compared with 13.5% in the routine education group, P < 0.001). The reduction in decisional conflict from baseline to follow-up was greater in the intervention group compared with the routine education; however, the difference only approached significance (P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of a preconsultation educational group intervention has been shown to significantly close the knowledge gap on PMBR in patients seeking delayed breast reconstruction or prophylactic mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction compared with routine education alone.

How Ineffective Interprofessional Collaboration Affects Delivery of Breast Reconstruction to Breast Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the benefits of breast reconstruction (BR), health care professionals do not consistently integrate it as an option in the treatment of breast cancer patients. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) amongst professionals may facilitate the elaboration of comprehensive oncological treatment plans. As the application of IPC in the delivery of BR has not yet been studied, we undertook a qualitative study to explore the perceptions of physicians and administrators on IPC in breast cancer care and how these impact BR delivery. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 30 participants (22 physicians and 8 administrators). Physician interviews focused on their personal beliefs and values regarding BR, while administrator interviews explored their institutional treatment regimens as well as the availability of a BR program. Our thematic analysis was informed by the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) competency framework. RESULTS: IPC challenges were thought by participants to affect the delivery of BR. At the physician level, a lack of role clarity as well as the absence of an explicitly established leader negatively influence collaboration in BR delivery. In addition, varying views on the usefulness of BR and on the role of plastic surgeons in breast oncological teams discourage positive collaboration, rendering the delivery of BR more difficult. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of BR is overall impaired due to a lack of effective IPC. IPC could be improved through clarifying physician roles, establishing clear leadership, and aligning viewpoints on quality oncological care in collaborative teams; ultimately, this may promote equitable BR delivery for breast cancer patients.

Reoperation cascade in postmastectomy breast reconstruction and its associated factors: Results from a long-term population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned surgeries following postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) may be required to treat complications or to revise the reconstructed breast. The primary objective of this study was to examine factors that influenced unplanned reoperations after PMBR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using provincial databases in Ontario, Canada, was completed. Patients with breast cancer underwent mastectomy between April 2002 and March 2012 followed by immediate or delayed PMBR. Primary outcome was time from PMBR to unplanned reoperations measured in years. The Anderson-Gill counting process model was used to estimate the risk of recurrent unplanned reoperations over time. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the association between covariates. RESULTS: A total of 3066 women underwent PMBR and 51.7% had at least one unplanned reoperation. Unplanned breast reoperation was significantly associated with microsurgical tissue vs implant-based reconstruction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27), radiation after PMBR (HR: 1.22), surgery at a nonteaching hospital (HR: 1.16), patient comorbidity score (HR: 1.02), and prior unplanned reoperations (HR: 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides important long-term population-level data regarding factors influencing unplanned reoperations after PMBR. Patients undergoing microsurgical PMBR or postmastectomy radiation had a higher rate of additional procedures. Every additional reoperation also increases the likelihood of unplanned reoperations resulting in a "reoperation cascade."