Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30(05): 313-318
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1361842
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Living with a Unilateral Mastectomy Defect: A Utility Assessment and Outcomes Study

Hani Sinno
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Ali Izadpanah
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Joshua Vorstenbosch
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Tassos Dionisopoulos
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Ahmed M.S. Ibrahim
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Adam M. Tobias
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Bernard T. Lee
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Samuel J. Lin
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 September 2013

17 September 2013

Publication Date:
17 February 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The gold standard for the treatment of breast cancer includes mastectomy surgery. Our goal was to quantify the health state utility assessment of living with unilateral mastectomy.

Methods The visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) were used to obtain utilities for unilateral mastectomy, monocular blindness and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of the general population and medical students.

Results All measures (VAS, TTO, SG) for unilateral mastectomy (0.75 SD 0.17, 0.87 SD 0.14, and 0.86 SD 0.18, respectively) of the 140 volunteers were significantly different from the corresponding scores for monocular (0.61 SD 0.18, 0.84 SD 0.17, and 0.84 SD 0.18, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.38 SD 0.17, 0.67 SD 0.24, and 0.69 SD 0.23, respectively). Age, gender, race, education, and income were not statistically significant independent predictors of utility scores.

Conclusion In a sample of the general population and medical students, utility assessments for living with unilateral mastectomy were comparable with those of living with bilateral mastectomy and severe breast hypertrophy. Our sample population, if faced living with unilateral mastectomy was willing to gamble a theoretical 14% chance of death and willing to trade 4.2 years of existing life-years.

Keywords

utility assessment - quality-adjusted life years - unilateral mastectomy - breast reconstruction
 

  • References

  • 1 Byrd Jr BF, Conerly Jr DB. The role of simple mastectomy in treatment of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg 1955; 141 (4) 477-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Williams IG, Curwen MP. Total mastectomy with axillary dissection and irradiation for mammary carcinoma. Ann Surg 1963; 157: 174-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER , et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med 1985; 312 (11) 674-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S , et al. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med 2002; 347 (8) 567-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE , et al. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92 (17) 1422-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Parker PA, Youssef A, Walker S , et al. Short-term and long-term psychosocial adjustment and quality of life in women undergoing different surgical procedures for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14 (11) 3078-3089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Elder EE, Brandberg Y, Bjorklund T , et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction in breast cancer patients after immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective study. Breast 2005; 14 (3) 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dean C, Chetty U, Forrest AP. Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy. Lancet 1983; 1 (8322) 459-462
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Metcalfe KA, Semple JL, Narod SA. Satisfaction with breast reconstruction in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a descriptive study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (2) 360-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S , et al. An objective assessment of the perceived quality of life of living with bilateral mastectomy defect. Breast 2013; 22 (2) 168-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4 (3) 315-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5 (4) 559-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL. An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (2) 370-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kneeland TS , et al. Measuring health state preferences in women with breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (2) 280-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE. Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 2006; 15 (5) 527-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1) 1-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Osch SM, Stiggelbout AM. The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2008; 17 (1) 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Buchholz P, Steeds CS, Stern LS , et al. Utility assessment to measure the impact of dry eye disease. Ocul Surf 2006; 4 (3) 155-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Lamping DL. Physician and patient-oriented outcomes in progressive neurological disease: which to measure?. Curr Opin Neurol 1996; 9 (6) 441-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lara AM, Wakholi BN, Kasirye A , et al. Utility assessment of HIV/AIDS-related health states in HIV-infected Ugandans. AIDS 2008; 22: 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sinno HH, Thibaudeau S, Duggal A, Lessard L. Utility scores for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation. [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (2) 443-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sinno H, Thibaudeau S, Tahiri Y , et al. Utility Assessment of Body Contouring After Massive Weight Loss. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2011; 35 (5) 724-730
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sinno HH, Ibrahim AM, Izadpanah A , et al. Utility outcome assessment of the aging neck following massive weight loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147 (1) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S , et al. The impact of living with a functional and aesthetic nasal deformity after primary rhinoplasty: a utility outcomes score assessment. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (4) 431-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sinno H, Tahiri Y, Thibaudeau S , et al. Cleft lip and palate: an objective measure outcome study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (2) 408-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sinno H, Thibaudeau S, Izadpanah A , et al. Utility outcome scores for unilateral facial paralysis. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69 (4) 435-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy 2006; 76 (3) 359-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J , et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994; 14 (1) 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R , et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312 (11) 665-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R , et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1989; 320 (13) 822-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK , et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995; 333 (22) 1456-1461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T , et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (6) 1585-1595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Craft RO, Colakoglu S, Curtis MS , et al. Patient satisfaction in unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (4) 1417-1424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Colakoglu S, Khansa I, Curtis MS , et al. Impact of complications on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (4) 1428-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Striplin D , et al. The health burden of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (6) 1591-1599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Liem YS, Bosch JL, Hunink MG. Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health 2008; 11 (4) 733-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Coffey JT, Brandle M, Zhou H , et al. Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (12) 2238-2243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13) 716-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar