PortalPublikationenChange of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and I...

Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

Standard

Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. / Hennigs, André; Biehl, Hannah; Rauch, Geraldine; Golatta, Michael; Tabatabai, Patrik; Domschke, Christoph; Schott, Sarah; Wallwiener, Markus; Schütz, Florian; Sohn, Christof; Heil, Jörg.

in: ANN SURG ONCOL, Jahrgang 23, Nr. 5, 05.2016, S. 1744-1751.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung

Harvard

Hennigs, A, Biehl, H, Rauch, G, Golatta, M, Tabatabai, P, Domschke, C, Schott, S, Wallwiener, M, Schütz, F, Sohn, C & Heil, J 2016, 'Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study', ANN SURG ONCOL, Jg. 23, Nr. 5, S. 1744-1751. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

APA

Hennigs, A., Biehl, H., Rauch, G., Golatta, M., Tabatabai, P., Domschke, C., Schott, S., Wallwiener, M., Schütz, F., Sohn, C., & Heil, J. (2016). Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. ANN SURG ONCOL, 23(5), 1744-1751. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

Vancouver

Hennigs A, Biehl H, Rauch G, Golatta M, Tabatabai P, Domschke C et al. Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. ANN SURG ONCOL. 2016 Mai;23(5):1744-1751. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

Bibtex

@article{e62dc7e961134d3dbca0fecaabdad5d8,
title = "Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).METHODS: This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis.RESULTS: The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple-areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures.",
keywords = "Breast Neoplasms, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Mastectomy, Mastectomy, Segmental, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Postoperative Complications, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Self Report, Seroma, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wound Healing, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't",
author = "Andr{\'e} Hennigs and Hannah Biehl and Geraldine Rauch and Michael Golatta and Patrik Tabatabai and Christoph Domschke and Sarah Schott and Markus Wallwiener and Florian Sch{\"u}tz and Christof Sohn and J{\"o}rg Heil",
year = "2016",
month = may,
doi = "10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "1744--1751",
journal = "ANN SURG ONCOL",
issn = "1068-9265",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

AU - Hennigs, André

AU - Biehl, Hannah

AU - Rauch, Geraldine

AU - Golatta, Michael

AU - Tabatabai, Patrik

AU - Domschke, Christoph

AU - Schott, Sarah

AU - Wallwiener, Markus

AU - Schütz, Florian

AU - Sohn, Christof

AU - Heil, Jörg

PY - 2016/5

Y1 - 2016/5

N2 - BACKGROUND: We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).METHODS: This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis.RESULTS: The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple-areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures.

AB - BACKGROUND: We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).METHODS: This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis.RESULTS: The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple-areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures.

KW - Breast Neoplasms

KW - Esthetics

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Humans

KW - Mastectomy

KW - Mastectomy, Segmental

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Neoplasm Staging

KW - Postoperative Complications

KW - Prognosis

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Self Report

KW - Seroma

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Wound Healing

KW - Journal Article

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

U2 - 10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

DO - 10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 26545376

VL - 23

SP - 1744

EP - 1751

JO - ANN SURG ONCOL

JF - ANN SURG ONCOL

SN - 1068-9265

IS - 5

ER -