International validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ‐BRECON23 quality‐of‐life questionnaire for women undergoing breast reconstruction. BJS 2018; 105: 209-222.
Published: 8th November 2017
Authors: Z. E. Winters, M. Afzal, C. Rutherford, B. Holzner, G. Rumpold, R. A. da Costa Vieira et al.
The aim was to carry out phase 4 international field‐testing of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) breast reconstruction (BRECON) module. The primary objective was finalization of its scale structure. Secondary objectives were evaluation of its reliability, validity, responsiveness, acceptability and interpretability in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction.
The EORTC module development guidelines were followed. Patients were recruited from 28 centres in seven countries. A prospective cohort completed the QLQ‐BRECON15 before mastectomy and the QLQ‐BRECON24 at 4–8 months after reconstruction. The cross‐sectional cohort completed the QLQ‐BRECON24 at 1–5 years after reconstruction, and repeated this 2–8 weeks later (test–retest reliability). All participants completed debriefing questionnaires.
A total of 438 patients were recruited, 234 in the prospective cohort and 204 in the cross‐sectional cohort. A total of 414 reconstructions were immediate, with a comparable number of implants (176) and donor‐site flaps (166). Control groups comprised patients who underwent two‐stage implant procedures (72, 75 per cent) or delayed reconstruction (24, 25 per cent). Psychometric scale validity was supported by moderate to high item‐own scale and item‐total correlations (over 0·5). Questionnaire validity was confirmed by good scale‐to‐sample targeting, and computable scale scores exceeding 50 per cent, except nipple cosmesis (over 40 per cent). In known‐group comparisons, QLQ‐BRECON24 scales and items differentiated between patient groups defined by clinical criteria, such as type and timing of reconstruction, postmastectomy radiotherapy and surgical complications, with moderate effect sizes. Prospectively, sexuality and surgical side‐effects scales showed significant responsiveness over time (
The QLQ‐BRECON23 is an internationally validated tool to be used alongside the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (cancer) and QLQ‐BR23 (breast cancer) questionnaires for evaluating quality of life and satisfaction after breast reconstruction.Full text
You may also be interested in
Breast‐conserving surgery followed by whole‐breast irradiation offers survival benefits over mastectomy without irradiation.
Authors: J. de Boniface, J. Frisell, L. Bergkvist, Y. Andersson
Notes: RT to lower axilla key?
Is axillary ultrasound imaging necessary for all patients with breast cancer?. BJS 2018; 105: 930-932.
Authors: M. Ahmed, M. Douek
Authors: T. K. Krastev, S. J. Schop, J. Hommes, A. A. Piatkowski, E. M. Heuts, R. R. W. J. van der Hulst et al.
Notes: Lipofilling ok
Omission of surgery in older women with early breast cancer has an adverse impact on breast cancer‐specific survival.
Authors: S. E. Ward, P. D. Richards, J. L. Morgan, G. R. Holmes, J. W. Broggio, K. Collins et al.
Notes: Surgery should be first choice
Risk of recurrence and death in patients with breast cancer after delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction.
Authors: H. Adam, A. C. Docherty Skogh, Å. Edsander Nord, I. Schultz, J. Gahm, P. Hall et al.
Notes: DIEP is safe
Predictors of complications after direct‐to‐implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, R. E. G. Dikmans, M. B. Bouman, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Notes: Not good for large breast
Population‐based study of the sensitivity of axillary ultrasound imaging in the preoperative staging of node‐positive invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. BJS 2018; 105: 987-995.
Authors: E. Morrow, A. Lannigan, J. Doughty, J. Litherland, J. Mansell, S. Stallard et al.
Notes: Less sensitive in lobular carcinoma
Routine histopathological examination after female‐to‐male gender‐confirming mastectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 885-892.
Authors: S. M. J. Van Renterghem, J. Van Dorpe, S. J. Monstrey, J. Defreyne, K. E. Y. Claes, M. Praet et al.
Notes: The case for
Meta‐analysis of neoadjuvant therapy and its impact in facilitating breast conservation in operable breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 469-481.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, M. K. Tasoulis, F. Wärnberg, G. Nilsson, F. MacNeill
Notes: Still unnecessary mastectomies
Baseline factors predicting a response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with implications for non‐surgical management of triple‐negative breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 535-543.
Authors: R. F. D. van la Parra, A. B. Tadros, C. M. Checka, G. M. Rauch, A. Lucci, B. D. Smith et al.
Notes: Ductal carcinoma in situ and microcalcification important
Authors: Z. E. Winters, J. R. Benson
Impact of specialist management on survival from radiation‐associated angiosarcoma of the breast. BJS 2018; 105: 401-409.
Authors: L. Feinberg, A. Srinivasan, J. K. Singh, M. Parry, J. Stevenson, L. Jeys et al.
Notes: Improves outcomes