Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cosmetic Outcomes and Quality of Life in Thai Women Post Breast Conserving Therapy for Breast Cancer

  • Thanarpan, Peerawong (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Somrit, Mahattanobon (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Rungarun, Jiratrachu (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Paytai, Rordlamool (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Duangjai, Sangtawan (Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Chanon, Kongkamol (Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Puttisak, Puttawibul (Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University)
  • Published : 2015.06.26
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the correlation between cosmetic outcome (CO), body image, and quality of life in post breast-conserving therapy (BCT) women. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study concerned one-year post-completed BCT Thai women. The data included subjective and objective CO with a questionnaire covering demographic and clinical data, anti-hormonal treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Self-Reported Cosmetic Outcomes (SRCO), Self-Reported Breast Symmetry (SRBS), Body Image Scale (BIS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy with Breast Cancer subscale (FACT-B). Participants had breast photographs taken for the evaluation of objective cosmetic outcome (OCO) after breast cancer conservation treatment. The relationship between CO and FACT-B was tested using Spearman's rank correlation Results: A total 127 participants volunteered for the study. The participant characteristics were age 52(${\pm}9$), Buddhist 87%, married 65%, body mass index 25.0(${\pm}4.6$), breast cup size A-C 91%, college educated 60%, employed 66%, ECOG 0-1 95%, tumor size less than or equal to 2 cm 55%, no lymph node metastasis 98%, and taking tamoxifen 57%. Two percent of the participants regretted their decision to undergo BCT. The SRCO was excellent in 2%, good in 68%, fair in 30%, and poor in 0%. For SRBS, rates were 17%, 58%, 24% and 1% for excellent, good, fair and poor cosmetic outcomes, respectively. The BCCT scores were excellent 24%, good 39%, fair 32%, and poor 6%. The median total QOL score of the participants was 130 (93-144). There was no significant correlation between CO and FACT-B scores. Conclusions: The significance of CO for FACT-B in Thai women with breast cancer could not be assessed in detail because of a very low level of correlation. The results may be due to the effects of cultural background.

Keywords

References

  1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst, 85, 365-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
  2. Al-Naggar RA, Nagi NM, Ali MM, et al (2011). Quality of life among breast cancer patients in Yemen. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2335-41.
  3. Arenas M, Sabater S, Hernandez V, et al (2006). Cosmetic outcome of breast conservative treatment for early stage breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol, 8, 334-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-006-0179-5
  4. Beaulac SM, McNair LA, Scott TE, et al (2002). Lymphedema and quality of life in survivors of early-stage breast cancer. Arch Surg, 137, 1253-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.11.1253
  5. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al (1997). Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol, 15, 974-86. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.974
  6. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al (2013). A closer look at the BREAST-Q((c)). Clin Plast Surg, 40, 287-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.002
  7. Cardoso JS, Cardoso MJ (2007). Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Artif Intell Med, 40, 115-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007
  8. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al (2012). Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 135, 629-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-1978-8
  9. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Wild T, et al (2009). Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 116, 149-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0173-4
  10. Cardoso MJ, Santos AC, Cardoso J, et al (2005). Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 61, 879-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.06.257
  11. Chang O, Choi EK, Kim IR, et al (2014). Association between socioeconomic status and altered appearance distress, body image, and quality of life among breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 8607-12. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.20.8607
  12. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C, et al (2011). Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet, 378, 1707-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2
  13. Exner R, Krois W, Mittlbock M, et al (2012). Objectively measured breast symmetry has no influence on quality of life in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol, 38, 130-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.10.012
  14. Fitzal F, Krois W, Trischler H, et al (2007). The use of a breast symmetry index for objective evaluation of breast cosmesis. Breast, 16, 429-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.013
  15. Glangkarn S, Promasatayaprot V, Porock D, et al (2011). Measuring quality of life in thai women with breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 637-44.
  16. Hau E, Browne L, Capp A, et al (2013). The impact of breast cosmetic and functional outcomes on quality of life: long-term results from the St. George and Wollongong randomized breast boost trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 139, 115-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2508-z
  17. He ZY, Tong Q, Wu SG, et al (2012). A comparison of quality of life and satisfaction of women with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conserving therapy vs. mastectomy in southern China. Support Care Cancer, 20, 2441-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1364-9
  18. Heil J, Czink E, Golatta M, et al (2011a). Change of aesthetic and functional outcome over time and their relationship to quality of life after breast conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol, 37, 116-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.11.007
  19. Heil J, Dahlkamp J, Golatta M, et al (2011b). Aesthetics in breast conserving therapy: do objectively measured results match patients' evaluations? Ann Surg Oncol, 18, 134-8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1252-4
  20. Hofstede GH, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, New York, McGraw-Hill.
  21. Hopwood P, Haviland J, Mills J, et al (2007). The impact of age and clinical factors on quality of life in early breast cancer: an analysis of 2208 women recruited to the UK START Trial (Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy Trial). Breast, 16, 241-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2006.11.003
  22. Kanatas A, Velikova G, Roe B, et al (2012). Patient-reported outcomes in breast oncology: a review of validated outcome instruments. Tumori, 98, 678-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/030089161209800602
  23. Kim MK, Kim T, Moon HG, et al (2015). Effect of cosmetic outcome on quality of life after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol, 41, 426-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.12.002
  24. Krishnan L, Stanton AL, Collins CA, et al (2001). Form or function? Part 2. Objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer, 91, 2282-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2282::AID-CNCR1259>3.0.CO;2-0
  25. Munshi A, Dutta D, Kakkar S, et al (2010). Comparison of early quality of life in patients treated with radiotherapy following mastectomy or breast conservation therapy: a prospective study. Radiother Oncol, 97, 288-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2010.04.008
  26. Nozaki M, Kagami Y, Mitsumori M, et al (2012). A multicenter investigation of late adverse events in Japanese women treated with breast-conserving surgery plus conventional fractionated whole-breast radiation therapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 42, 522-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys050
  27. Ohsumi S, Shimozuma K, Morita S, et al (2009). Factors associated with health-related quality-of-life in breast cancer survivors: influence of the type of surgery. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 39, 491-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyp060
  28. Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR, et al (1985). Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 11, 575-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(85)90190-7
  29. Ren ZJ, Li XJ, Xu XY, et al (2014). Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with nipple-areolar preservation for centrally located breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 4847-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.12.4847
  30. Shen FR, Liu M, Zhang X, et al (2012). Health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients and its influencing factor in a Chinese population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 3747-50. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.8.3747
  31. Spagnola S, Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, et al (2003). The satisfaction with life domains scale for breast cancer (SLDS-BC). Breast J, 9, 463-71. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.2003.09603.x
  32. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, et al (1996). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol, 14, 2756-68. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2756
  33. Stanton AL, Krishnan L, Collins CA (2001). Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer, 91, 2273-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2273::AID-CNCR1258>3.0.CO;2-1
  34. Takei H, Ohsumi S, Shimozuma K, et al (2012). Health-related quality of life, psychological distress, and adverse events in postmenopausal women with breast cancer who receive tamoxifen, exemestane, or anastrozole as adjuvant endocrine therapy: national surgical adjuvant study of breast cancer 04 (N-SAS BC 04). Breast Cancer Res Treat, 133, 227-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1943-y
  35. Toledano AH, Bollet MA, Fourquet A, et al (2007). Does concurrent radiochemotherapy affect cosmetic results in the adjuvant setting after breast-conserving surgery? Results of the ARCOSEIN multicenter, Phase III study: patients' and doctors' views. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 68, 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.006
  36. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al (2002). Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 347, 1227-32. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020989
  37. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, et al (2008). Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol, 26, 3331-7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1375