Normative BREAST-Q reconstruction scores for satisfaction and well-being of the breasts and potential donor sites: what are Swedish women of the general population satisfied/dissatisfied with?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jphs.v58.15301Keywords:
BREAST-Q, patientreported outcomes, PROM, quality of life, breast reconstruction, plastic surgery, normative values, breast satisfactionAbstract
Background: Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q reconstruction module are currently limited to four populations. The primary aim of this study was to create Swedish normative values for the BREAST-Q reconstruction domains. The secondary aim was to describe what aspects of the breasts and potential donor sites that women of the general population are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with.
Methods: The BREAST-Q reconstruction module was sent to a random sample of 400 women currently living in Region Västra Götaland. Descriptive data are presented.
Results: One hundred and forty-six women answered the questionnaire (36.5%). The mean age of the cohort was 53 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m2. Mean total scores ranged from 50 to 90. The mean score for satisfaction with breast was 57 on a 0–100 scale. Women with high BMI values seem to be less satisfied with their breasts and physical and sexual well-being. The participants were most satisfied with their breasts when clothed. Overall, the reported physical well-being related to potential donor sites was high.
Conclusions: Normative data for BREAST-Q constitute a reference point, which allows us to put another perspective on changes in scores rather than just comparing scores before and after surgery. Scores were somewhat different than scores in previously published normative populations, which indicates that there might be cultural differences in breast satisfaction.
Downloads
References
Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM, Group BS. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102: 1360–1371. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9883
Davies CF, Macefield R, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Potter S. Patient-reported outcome measures for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a systematic review of development and measurement properties. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:386–404. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08736-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08736-8
Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013
Kamya L, Hansson E, Weick L, Hansson E. Validation and reliability testing of the Breast-Q latissimus dorsi questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties in a Swedish population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19:174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01812-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01812-x
Klifto KM, Aravind P, Major M, et al. Establishing institution-specific normative data for the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a prospective study. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:NP348–NP355. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz296
Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Breast cancer and reconstruction: normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1046e–1055e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003241
Crittenden TA, Smallman A, Dean NR. Normative data for the BREAST-Q Reconstruction module in an Australian population and comparison with US norms and breast reconstruction patient outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75: 2219–2228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.01.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.01.033
Sadok N, Jansen L, De Zoete MD, Van der Lei B, Werker PMN, De Bock GH. A Dutch cross-sectional population survey to explore satisfaction of women with their breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e4002. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.00000e00000004002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000004002
Aesthetic plastic surgery national databank statistics 2020. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab178
Tuna Butt S, Widmark-Jensen E, Meyer S, Hansson E. Swedish normative scores for the BREAST-Q reduction/mastopexy module. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023;47:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03025-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03025-z
Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, Klok J, Cano SJ. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-11
Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6b DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6b
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: 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807
BREAST-Q users’ manual. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan Cancer Center. New York. 2015.
BREAST-Q Version 2.0 users’ manual. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Memorial Sloan Cancer Center. New York. 2017.
Aesthetic plastic surgery national databank statistics 2020–2021. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjac116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjac116
Bot SD, van der Waal JM, Terwee CB, et al. Incidence and prevalence of complaints of the neck and upper extremity in general practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:118–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.019349
Corp N, Mansell G, Stynes S, et al. Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: a systematic review of guidelines. Eur J Pain. 2021;25:275–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1679 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1679
Balague F, Mannion AF, Pellise F, Cedraschi C. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2012;379:482–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60610-7
Officiel statistik [Internet]. Available from: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/folkhalsorapportering-statistik/officiell-statistik/ [2023 August 19]
Ringberg A, Bageman E, Rose C, Ingvar C, Jernstrom H. Of cup and bra size: reply to a prospective study of breast size and premenopausal breast cancer incidence. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119:2242–2243; author reply 2244. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22104
Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Gibbons CJ. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145:11e–20e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006317
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Christian Jepsen, Anna Paganini, Emma Hansson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
