Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction compared to total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present review evaluated health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes in surgical breast cancer survivors who received breast reconstruction (BR), breast-conservation surgery (BCS) or mastectomy (M), and whether HR-QoL domains across generic and disease/surgery-specific questionnaires are compatible. Six electronic databases were searched for appropriate observational studies. Standardized scores for different HR-QoL domains in the BR, BCS, and M treatment groups were extracted from each study for the purpose of a meta-analysis. Using Stata version 14.0, a random-effects meta-analysis model was adopted for each outcome variable to estimate the effect size, 95% CI—confidence intervals, and statistical significance. Sixteen of the 18 eligible studies with BR (n = 1474) and BCS (n = 2612) or M (n = 1458) groups were included in the meta-analysis. The BR group exhibited a better physical health (k = 12; 0.1, 95% CI 0.04, 0.24) and body image (k = 12; 0.50, 95% CI 0.10, 0.89) than the M group. However, the two groups exhibited comparable social health (k = 13; 0.1, 95% CI −0.07, 0.37), emotional health (k = 13; −0.08, 95% CI − 0.41, 0.25), global health (k = 7; 0.1, 95% CI − 0.01, 0.27), and sexual health (k =11; 0.2, 95% CI − 0.02,0.57). There was no clear evidence of the superiority of BR to BCS for all the six domains. These results suggest that HR-QoL outcomes in BR and BCS groups are better than the M group. Therefore, women opting for BR or BCS are likely to report fairly better HR-QoL outcomes than M. However, due to the significant heterogeneity observed in most BR versus BCS outcomes, developing a unified questionnaire incorporating both breast/surgery-specific and generic HR-QoL domains is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, Meade T, Parbhoo J, Mathias M, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2682–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Larsen J, Nordström G, Björkstrand B, Ljungman P, Gardulf A. Symptom distress, functional status and health-related quality of life before high-dose chemotherapy with stem-cell transplantation. Eur J Cancer Care. 2003;12:71–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalton EJ, Rasmussen VN, Classen CC, Grumann M, Palesh OG, Zarcone J, et al. Sexual Adjustment and Body Image Scale (SABIS): a new measure for breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2009;15:287–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, Belin TR, Wyatt GE, Ganz PA. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1422–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nano MT, Gill PG, Kollias J, Bochner MA, Malycha P, Winefield HR. Psychological impact and cosmetic outcome of surgical breast cancer strategies. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:940–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, Janz N, Alderman A, Graff J, et al. Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yurek D, Farrar W, Andersen BL. Breast cancer surgery: Comparing surgical groups and determining individual differences in postoperative sexuality and body change stress. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Arora NK, Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, McTavish F, Cella DF, Pingree S, et al. Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on the quality of life of younger women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92:1288–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mock V. Body image in women treated for breast cancer. Nurs Res. 1993;42(3):153–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Collins KK, Liu Y, Schootman M, Aft R, Yan Y, Dean G, et al. Effects of breast cancer surgery and surgical side effects on body image over time. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pusic A, Thompson TA, Kerrigan CL, Sargeant R, Slezak S, Chang BW, et al. Surgical options for the early-stage breast cancer: factors associated with patient choice and postoperative quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1325–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cocquyt VF, Blondeel PN, Depypere HT, Van De Sijpe KA, Daems KK, Monstrey SJ, et al. Better cosmetic results and comparable quality of life after skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate autologous breast reconstruction compared to breast conservative treatment. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56:462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Korus LJ, Cypel T, Zhong T, Wu AW. Patient-reported outcome measures in reconstructive breast surgery: is there a role for generic measures? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:479e–90e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyomard V, Leinster S, Wilkinson M. Systematic review of studies of patients’ satisfaction with breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast. 2007;16:547–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee C, Sunu C, Pignone M. Patient-reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:123–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. Ann Surg. 2010;252:929–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Group W. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, King T, McCarthy C, Cordeiro PG, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J. 2010;16:587–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:974–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sprangers M, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, te Velde A, Muller M, et al. 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. 1996;14:2756–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Polivy J. Psychological effects of mastectomy on a woman’s feminine self-concept. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1977;164(2):77–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A, Al Ghazal S. A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:189–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:769–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC, Davis JA, Kim HM, Roth RS, et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1014–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:195–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 9–Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses: cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv Vers. 2011; 5.

  32. Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1962;65:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Egger MSG, Altman G. In: Matthias E GD-SE, Douglas A (Editor). In: Systematic reviews in health care, 2nd. BMJ Books; 2001.

  34. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Harbord RM, Higgins J. Meta-regression in Stata. Meta. 2008;8:493–519.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Spatuzzi R, Vespa A, Lorenzi P, Miccinesi G, Ricciuti M, Cifarelli W, et al. Evaluation of social support, quality of life, and body image in women with breast cancer. Breast Care. 2016;11:28–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ng SK, Hare RM, Kuang RJ, Smith KM, Brown BJ, Hunter-Smith DJ. Breast reconstruction post mastectomy: patient satisfaction and decision making. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:640–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sisco M, Johnson DB, Wang C, Rasinski K, Rundell VL, Yao KA. The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:663–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim MK, Kim T, Moon H-G, Jin US, Kim K, Kim J, et al. Effect of cosmetic outcome on quality of life after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:426–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sun Y, Kim S-W, Heo CY, Kim D, Hwang Y, Yom CK, et al. Comparison of quality of life based on surgical technique in patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;44:22–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Heneghan H, Prichard R, Lyons R, Regan P, Kelly J, Malone C, et al. Quality of life after immediate breast reconstruction and skin-sparing mastectomy–a comparison with patients undergoing breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:937–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Min SY, Kim HY, Jung SY, Kwon Y, Shin KH, Lee S, et al. Oncological safety and quality of life associated with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with a latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Breast J. 2010;16:356–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Han J, Grothuesmann D, Neises M, Hille U, Hillemanns P. Quality of life and satisfaction after breast cancer operation. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;282:75–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. De Gournay E, Bonnetain F, Tixier H, Loustalot C, Dabakuyo S, Cuisenier J. Evaluation of quality of life after breast reconstruction using an autologous latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:520–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Janz NK, Mujahid M, Lantz PM, Fagerlin A, Salem B, Morrow M, et al. Population-based study of the relationship of treatment and sociodemographics on quality of life for early stage breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1467–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Szutowicz-Wydra B, Wydra J, Kruszewski WJ, Ciesielski M, Szajewski M, Walczak J, et al. Same quality of life for Polish breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and breast reconstruction or breast-conserving therapy. Pol J Surg. 2016;88:264–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chao L-F, Patel KM, Chen S-C, Lam H-B, Lin C-Y, Liu H-E, et al. Monitoring patient-centered outcomes through the progression of breast reconstruction: a multicentered prospective longitudinal evaluation. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146:299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shi H, Uen Y, Yen L, Culbertson R, Juan C, Hou M. Two-year quality of life after breast cancer surgery: a comparison of three surgical procedures. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:695–702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Harcourt DM, Rumsey NJ, Ambler NR, Cawthorn SJ, Reid CD, Maddox PR, et al. The psychological effect of mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction: a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1060–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Howes BH, Watson DI, Xu C, Fosh B, Canepa M, Dean NR. Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: a case-controlled cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cortés-Flores AO, Morgan-Villela G, del Valle CJZ-F, Jiménez-Tornero J, Juárez-Uzeta E, Urias-Valdez DP, et al. Quality of life among women treated for breast cancer: a survey of three procedures in Mexico. Aesth Plast Surg. 2014;38:887–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. de Carvalho Aguiar I, Veiga DF, Marques TF, Novo NF, Neto MS, Ferreira LM. Patient-reported outcomes measured by BREAST-Q after implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional controlled study in Brazilian patients. Breast. 2017;31:22–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vaziri S, Kashani FL. Sexuality after breast cancer: need for guideline. Iran J Cancer Prev. 2012;5:10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fang S-Y, Shu B-C, Chang Y-J. The effect of breast reconstruction surgery on body image among women after mastectomy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137:13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Wilkins EG, Pusic AL. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:891–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:901–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Yoon AP, Qi J, Brown DL, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Erdmann-Sager J, et al. Outcomes of immediate versus delayed breast reconstruction: results of a multicenter prospective study. Breast. 2018;37:72–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Billig J, Jagsi R, Qi J, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Pusic AL, et al. Should immediate autologous breast reconstruction be considered in women who require post-mastectomy radiation therapy? A prospective analysis of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1279.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Pusic AL, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Kerrigan CL. Validation of the breast evaluation questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:352–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nguyen J, Popovic M, Chow E, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Chu D, et al. EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B for the assessment of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:157–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Swanson E. Limitations of the Breast-Q as an outcomes measure for evaluation of breast augmentation patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:986e–8e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Fuzesi S, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Atisha D, Pusic AL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast. 2017;33:44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Schwartz K, Liu L, Lakhani I, et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:745–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Col NF, Duffy C, Landau C. Commentary—surgical decisions after breast cancer: can patients be too involved in decision making? Health Serv Res. 2005;40:769–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Luan A, Hui KJ, Remington AC, Liu X, Lee GK. Effects of a novel decision aid for breast reconstruction: a randomized prospective trial. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:S249–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rubino C, Figus A, Lorettu L, Sechi G. Post-mastectomy reconstruction: a comparative analysis on psychosocial and psychopathological outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:509–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Paterson C, Lengacher CA, Donovan KA, Kip KE, Tofthagen CS. Body image in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Cancer Nurs. 2016;39:E39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Koçan S, Gürsoy A. Body image of women with breast cancer after mastectomy: a qualitative research. J Breast Health. 2016;12:145.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Snell L, Cano SJ, McCarthy C, Scott A, et al. Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12:149–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, St George’s University Hospital, London, UK

    Sadaf Zehra

  2. Royal College of Surgeon Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

    F. Doyle

  3. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    M. Barry, S. Walsh & M. R. Kell

Authors
  1. Sadaf Zehra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Doyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. R. Kell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadaf Zehra.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 422 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zehra, S., Doyle, F., Barry, M. et al. Health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction compared to total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer 27, 534–566 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01076-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-020-01076-1

Keywords