A comprehensive literature review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among common breast reconstruction options: What types of breast reconstruction score well?

PURPOSE

Breast cancer continues to be the most prevalent cancer affecting women. Many reconstructive options exist after oncologic resection. Breast reconstruction can have a lasting impact on many areas of the patient's life, and therefore, a high consideration for patient satisfaction is crucial. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an important tool in the evaluation of different surgical methodologies. The aim of this comprehensive systematic review is to look at various surgical modalities in breast reconstruction as they relate to patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A PubMed PRISMA search was performed. Criteria for inclusion included nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with autologous or implant-based reconstruction, level 2 volume displacement or volume replacement oncoplastic surgery, and measurement of patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q or other validated PROMs. From the data set, weighted proportions were generated and analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and a post hoc Dunn's test.

RESULTS

After obtaining 254 full text copies, 43 articles met inclusion criteria and were included. Analysis of BREAST-Q data showed oncoplastic breast surgery was significantly preferred over mastectomy regardless of the type of reconstruction. Nipple-sparing was significantly preferred over skin-sparing mastectomy, autologous reconstruction was significantly preferred over implant-based reconstruction, and prepectoral implant placement was preferred over subpectoral implant placement. Validated PROMs other than BREAST-Q showed similar trends in all but type of mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comprehensive systematic review, oncoplastic surgery showed the most favorable PROMs when compared to other reconstructive modalities. Autologous was preferred over implant-based reconstruction, and prepectoral was preferred over subpectoral implant placement.