LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Abstract P1-11-11: Evaluating cosmetic outcome following breast conserving surgery in trials; panel verus objective evaluation and the role of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Photo by natinati from unsplash

Objective Cosmetic outcome is an important quality of life related endpoint following breast conserving surgery (BCS). We aim to compare the cosmetic outcome evaluated by panel and objective evaluation (BCCT.core… Click to show full abstract

Objective Cosmetic outcome is an important quality of life related endpoint following breast conserving surgery (BCS). We aim to compare the cosmetic outcome evaluated by panel and objective evaluation (BCCT.core software). Second patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are compared to cosmetic evaluation by panel and BCCT.core. Methods Sixty-eight breast cancer patients were included after breast conserving surgery between 2007-2012. Cosmetic outcome was evaluated by; two independent 6-member panels, the BCCT.core by two observers and PROMs (EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, EQ-5D-5L and BREAST-Q 9breast conserving module9). First, reproducibility, repeatability and overall agreement of panel and BCCT.core was analysed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Second, the correlation between panel/BCCT.core with PROMs was analysed using the Spearman9s rank correlation coefficient (spearman9s ρ). Sensitivity of all PROMs to differentiate between a 9good9 or 9bad9 cosmetic outcome was evaluated. Results Sixty-four patients (94.1%) completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30/B23, 58 (85.3%) the EQ-5D-5L and BREAST-Q. Repeatability between both panels and BCCT.core observers was respectively 0.93 and 0.86 (ICC). Reproducibility for panel 1 and BCCT.core 1 was respectively 0.93 and 0.96. Overall agreement between panel and BCCT.core ranged between 0.59 – 0.69. For PROMs the BREAST-Q showed the strongest correlation with panel and BCCT.core, 0.32-047 spearman9s ρ. The BREAST-Q significantly differentiated between a 9good9 or 9bad9 cosmetic outcome based on panel and BCCT.core (p Conclusion Comparable good reproducibility and repeatability was found for panel and BCCT. PROMs showed limited agreement but the PROM BREAST-Q was able to differentiate between a good or bad cosmetic evaluation. Combining PROMs with panel or BCCT.core in future trials evaluating cosmetic outcome following BCS could further improve and evaluate the use of PROMs. Citation Format: Lagendijk M, Vos EL, Corten EML, Verhoef C, Koppert LB. Evaluating cosmetic outcome following breast conserving surgery in trials; panel verus objective evaluation and the role of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-11-11.

Keywords: panel; cosmetic outcome; bcct core; breast

Journal Title: Cancer Research
Year Published: 2017

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.