A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures.

Published

Conference Paper

PURPOSE: Women with early-stage breast cancer face the complex decision to undergo one of three equally effective oncologic surgical strategies: breast-conservation surgery with radiation (BCS), mastectomy, or mastectomy with breast reconstruction. With comparable oncologic outcomes and survival rates, evaluations of satisfaction with these procedures are needed to facilitate the decision-making process and to optimize long-term health. METHODS: Women recruited from the Army of Women with a history of breast cancer surgery took electronically administered surgery-specific surveys, including the BREAST-Q© and a background survey evaluating patient-, disease-, and procedure-specific factors. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to evaluate the effect of procedure type on breast satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Overall, 7,619 women completed the questionnaires. Linear regression revealed that women who underwent abdominal flap, or buttock or thigh flap reconstruction reported the highest breast satisfaction score, scoring an average of 5.6 points and 14.4 points higher than BCS, respectively (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.027, respectively). No difference in satisfaction was observed in women who underwent latissimus dorsi flap reconstruction compared with those who underwent BCS. Women who underwent implant reconstruction reported scores 8.6 points lower than BCS (p < 0.0001). Those with mastectomies without reconstruction or complex surgical histories scored, on average, 10 points lower than BCS (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Women who underwent autologous tissue reconstruction reported the highest breast satisfaction, while women undergoing mastectomy without reconstruction reported the lowest satisfaction. These findings emphasize the value of patient-reported outcome measures as an important guide to decision making in breast surgery and underscore the importance of multidisciplinary participation early in the surgical decision-making process.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Atisha, DM; Rushing, CN; Samsa, GP; Locklear, TD; Cox, CE; Shelley Hwang, E; Zenn, MR; Pusic, AL; Abernethy, AP

Published Date

  • February 2015

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 22 / 2

Start / End Page

  • 361 - 369

PubMed ID

  • 25465378

Pubmed Central ID

  • 25465378

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1534-4681

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1245/s10434-014-4246-9

Conference Location

  • United States