Brustrekonstruktion – der Einfluss des Verfahrens auf die Lebensqualität

Zusammenfassung

Deutsch Brustkrebs und die damit verbundenen chirurgischen Eingriffe haben grosse Auswirkungen auf die Lebensqualität der betroffenen Patientinnen. Die Studienlage zeigt, dass der Verlust der Brust und die damit verbundene Veränderung des Körperbildes für viele Frauen grosse Auswirkungen auf das weibliche Selbstverständnis haben. Das hat einen starken negativen Einfluss auf die Lebensqualität der Betroffenen. Mit moderner klinischer Outcome Forschung unter Einbezug der Behandlungsergebnisse aus der Patientinnenperspektive in Form von Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) lassen sich die Zufriedenheit und Lebensqualität von Betroffenen messen, analysieren und vergleichen. Diese Übersichtsarbeit durchleuchtet inwiefern die Wiederherstellung der Brust für viele Frauen eine Verbesserung der Lebensqualität bedeutet und wie die unterschiedlichen Rekonstruktionsmethoden in ihrem Einfluss auf die Lebensqualität und Zufriedenheit variieren. Ausserdem wird die Wichtigkeit der standardisierten Erfassung und Analyse von PROMs in Kombination mit objektiven klinischen Daten sowie deren Integration den Behandlungsprozess diskutiert und die Implementierungsmöglichkeiten aufgezeigt. Eine solche systematische Erfassung ermöglicht die Anlage von Datenbanken und Registern, deren Auswertungen Informationen bereitstellen, die für wissenschaftliche, wie klinische Zwecke verwendbar sind. So lassen sich, basierend auf den Forschungsergebnissen, prognostische Modelle kreieren und Behandlungsergebnisse in Vergleichsstudien untersuchen, die klinische Entscheidungsfindungen und Qualitätskontrollen erleichtern.

Abstract

English Breast cancer and the surgical procedures associated with it have a major impact on the quality of life of affected patients. Research shows that the loss of the breast and the associated change in body image have a major impact on the female self-image for many women. This has a strong negative impact on the quality of life of those affected. With modern clinical outcome research including treatment results from the patient’s perspective in the form of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the satisfaction and quality of life of those affected can be measured, analysed and compared. This review examines the extent to which breast reconstruction improves the quality of life for many women and how the different reconstruction methods vary in their impact on quality of life and satisfaction. In addition, the review discusses the importance of standardised recording and analysis of PROMs in combination with objective clinical data and their integration into the treatment process, and it demonstrates implementation options. Such systematic recording of PROMs enables the creation of databases and registers, the evaluation of which provides information that can be used for scientific and clinical purposes. Based on these research results, prognostic models can be created and treatment results can be examined in comparative studies facilitating clinical decision-making and quality controls.

Schlüsselwörter

Brustrekonstruktion - Lebensqualität - Outcome Forschung - PROMs

Key words

breast reconstruction - quality of life - patient-reported outcome measures - outcome research

^* Geteilte Erstautorenschaft

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. November 2021

Angenommen: 02. Mai 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. Juli 2022

• Literatur

• 1 Ferrell BR, Grant M, Funk B. et al. Quality of life in breast cancer. Cancer Practice 1996; 4: 331-340
• 2 Schmidt ME, Wiskemann J, Steindorf K. Quality of life, problems, and needs of disease-free breast cancer survivors 5 years after diagnosis. Quality of Life Research 2018;
• 3 Dorfmüller M. Brustrekonstruktion nach Mastektomie: objektive Fakten und subjektives Befinden der Patienten. Gynäkologe 1999; 32: 114-120
• 4 Strittmatter HJ, Neises M, Blecken SR. Kriterien der Lebensqualität nach rekonstruktiven Mammakarzinomoperationen. Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie 2006; 128: 217-223
• 5 Bergner M. Quality of Life, health status and clinical research. Med Care 1989; 27: 148-156
• 6 Robert-Koch-Institut. Im Internet: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/GesundAZ/G/Gesundheitsbezogene_Lebensqualitaet/Gesundheitsbezogene_Lebensqualitaet_node.htmlStand: November 2021
• 7 Ebrahim S. Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 1383-1394
• 8 Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL. A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence to Guide Treatment Recommendations in Breast Reconstruction Based on Patient- Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality of Life. Annals of Surgery 2010; 252: 929-942
• 9 den Heijer M, Seynaeve C, Timman R. et al. Body Image and psychological Distress after prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women: a prospective long-term follow-up study. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: 1263-1268
• 10 Miaja M, Platas A, Martinez-Cannon BA. Psychological impact of alterations in sexuality, fertility, and body image in young breast cancer patients and their partners. Rev Invest Clin 2017; 69: 204-209
• 11 World Health Organization. Im Internet: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer Stand September 2021
• 12 DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM. et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2019; 69: 438-451
• 13 Ahmad A. Breast Cancer Statistics: Recent Trends. In: Ahmad A. Hrsg. Breast Cancer Metastasis and Drug Resistance. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 2019, vol 1152. Springer; Cham.:
• 14 Atisha D, Alderman AK, Lowery JC. et al. Prospective analysis of long-term psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: two-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes study. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 1019-1028
• 15 Zhong T, McCarthy C, Min S. et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer 2012; 118: 1701-1709
• 16 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM. et al. Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2013; 132: 201e-209e
• 17 Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM. et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 2009; 124: 345-353
• 18 Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TNS. et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69: 149-162
• 19 Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH. et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 2002; 288: 3027-3034
• 20 Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R. et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. Journal of clinical oncology 2014; 32: 1480-1510
• 21 Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG. et al. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 557-565
• 22 Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC. et al. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA 2017; 318: 197-198
• 23 Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012; 21: 1305-1314
• 24 Hu ES, Pusic AL, Waljee JF. et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124: 1-8
• 25 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM. et al. Which breast is the best? Successful autologous or alloplastic breast reconstruction: patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 43-50
• 26 Pirro O, Mestak O, Vindigni V. et al. Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes after Implant Versus Autologous Tissue Breast Reconstruction Using the BREAST-Q. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 2017; 5: e1217
• 27 Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM. et al. Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018; 153: 891-899
• 28 Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC. et al. Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan breast reconstruction outcomes study. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204: 7-12
• 29 Coriddi M, Shenaq D, Kenworthy E. et al. Autologous Breast Reconstruction after Failed Implant-Based Reconstruction: Evaluation of Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143: 373-379
• 30 Spear SL, Murphy DK. Allergan Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Core Clinical Study Group. Natrelle round silicone breast implants: Core Study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133: 1354-1361
• 31 Macadam SA, Zhong T, Weichman K. et al. Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137: 758-771
• 32 McCarthy CM, Mehrara BJ, Long T. et al. Chest and upper body morbidity following immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 107-112
• 33 Macadam SA, Ho AL, Cook EF. et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 761-771
• 34 Chattopadhyay D, Gupta S, Jash PK. et al. Skin sparing mastectomy with preservation of nipple areola complex and immediate breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: a single centre prospective study. Plastic surgery international 2014;
• 35 Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M. et al. A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Mastectomy with Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 2909-2916
• 36 Koslow S, Pharmer LA, Scott AM. et al. Long-term patient-re-ported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implant reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3422-3429
• 37 Kappos EA, Schulz A, Regan MM. et al. Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized superiority trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e04239
• 38 Zhong T, Hu J, Bagher S. et al. A Comparison of Psychological Response, Body Image, Sexuality, and Quality of Life between Immediate and Delayed Autologous Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Long-Term Outcome Study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2016; 138: 772-780
• 39 Teo I, Reece GP, Christie IC. et al. Body image and quality of life of breast cancer patients: influence of timing and stage of breast reconstruction. Psychooncology 2016; 25: 1106-1112
• 40 Ritter M, Ling BM, Oberhauser I. et al. The impact of age on patient-reported outcomes after oncoplastic versus conventional breast cancer surgery. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2021; 1-10
• 41 Albornoz CR, Matros E, McCarthy CM. et al. Implant Breast Reconstruction and Radiation: A Multicenter Analysis of Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life and Satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 2159-2164
• 42 Browne JP, Jeevan R, Gulliver-Clarke C. et al. The association between complications and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction for breast cancer. Cancer 2017; 123: 3460-3467
• 43 Colakoglu S, Khansa I, Curtis MS. et al. Impact of complications on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2011; 127.4: 1428-1436
• 44 Lu SM, Nelson JA, Fischer JP. et al. The impact of complications on function, health, and satisfaction following abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction: A prospective evaluation. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 2014; 67: 682-692
• 45 Meyer MO, Handschin TM, Boll DT. et al. The Value of Morphometric Measurements in Risk Assessment for Donor-Site Complications after Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020; 9: 2645
• 46 Kappos EA, Jaskolka J, Butler K. et al. Preoperative computed tomographic angiogram measurement of abdominal muscles is a valuable risk assessment for bulge formation after microsurgical abdominal free flap breast reconstruction. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2017; 140: 170-177
• 47 Fitzgerald O’Connor E, Rozen WM, Chowdhry M. et al. Preoperative computed tomography angiography for planning DIEP flap breast reconstruction reduces operative time and overall complications. Gland Surg 2016; 5: 93-98
• 48 Eriksson M, Anveden L, Celebioglu F. et al. Radiotherapy in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: risk factors, surgical outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures in a large Swedish multicenter cohort. Breast cancer research and treatment 2013; 142: 591-601
• 49 Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation Therapy and Breast Reconstruction: A Critical Review of the Literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009; 124: 395-408