Outcomes of Different Quality of Life Assessment Modalities After Breast Cancer Therapy

Abstract

Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed. To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC. Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022. Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity. Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs. Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation of AOs were assessed. A total of 10 observational studies including 3083 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-60] years; median [range] follow-up, 39.0 [22.5-80.5] months) with reported AOs were assessed and homogenized in 4 distinct Likert response groups (excellent, very good, satisfactory, and bad). Overall network incoherence was low (χ22 = 0.35; P = .83). Overall, panel and software modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs. Specifically, for excellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I2 = 95%), while the BCCT.core to panel ratio of ORs was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.88; I2 = 88%). In this study, patients scored AOs higher than both expert panels and computer software. Standardization and supplementation of expert panel and software AO tools with racially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive PROMs is needed to improve clinical evaluation of the journey of patients with BC and to prioritize components of therapeutic outcomes.