Purpose: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). Material and Methods: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or ab- dominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. Conclusion: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.
Breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer that affects women worldwide, posing a significant burden on public health. While advancements in early detection and improved treatments have led to a remarkable 90% five-year survival rate and an 83% ten-year survival rate, this has also resulted in more prophylactic mastectomies being performed. Despite advancements in breast-conserving techniques, immunotherapy, and hormone therapy, many women still undergo mastectomies as part of their cancer treatment. In all cases, this results in scarring, and additional side effects from treatment modalities may arise. The loss of a breast can profoundly impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although HRQoL has improved greatly during the recent years, systematic and local therapy having side effects is not uncommon, and this needs more attention.
Background: A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in ‘real life’ situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version. Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals. Methods: Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Results: A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it. Conclusion: The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing)
