Download PDF
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2022; 54(04): 349-355
DOI: 10.1055/a-1846-1308
Übersichtsarbeit

Brustrekonstruktion – der Einfluss des Verfahrens auf die Lebensqualität

Breast Reconstruction: Impact of the Procedure on Quality of Life
Kristin Marit Schaefer   *
1   Plastische, Rekonstruktive, ästhetische und Handchirurgie, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Elisabeth Artemis Kappos   *
1   Plastische, Rekonstruktive, ästhetische und Handchirurgie, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
2   Universität Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Martin Haug
1   Plastische, Rekonstruktive, ästhetische und Handchirurgie, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Dirk Johannes Schaefer
1   Plastische, Rekonstruktive, ästhetische und Handchirurgie, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
2   Universität Basel, Basel, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Brustrekonstruktion – der Einfluss des Verfahrens auf die LebensqualitätHandchir Mikrochir Plast Chir eFirst
DOI: 10.1055/a-1905-6662

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




Publication History

Received: 30 November 2021

Accepted: 02 May 2022

Article published online:
04 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Ferrell BR, Grant M, Funk B. et al. Quality of life in breast cancer. Cancer Practice 1996; 4: 331-340
    Google Scholar
  • 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; DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1866-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Dorfmüller M. Brustrekonstruktion nach Mastektomie: objektive Fakten und subjektives Befinden der Patienten. Gynäkologe 1999; 32: 114-120
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Strittmatter HJ, Neises M, Blecken SR. Kriterien der Lebensqualität nach rekonstruktiven Mammakarzinomoperationen. Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie 2006; 128: 217-223
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Bergner M. Quality of Life, health status and clinical research. Med Care 1989; 27: 148-156
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e623db.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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.: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20301-6_1
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.7156.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001217.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM. et al. Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2018; 153: 891-899 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005197.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000021.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000479932.11170.8f.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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; DOI: 10.1155/2014/589068.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6585-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002536.
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1002/pon.3952.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3483-2.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9082645.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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 DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.05.17.
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Kronowitz SJ, Robb GL. Radiation Therapy and Breast Reconstruction: A Critical Review of the Literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009; 124: 395-408 DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee987.
    Google Scholar