Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32097289›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2020

The Evolution of Breast Satisfaction and Well-Being after Breast Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Comparison to the Norm.

Lily R Mundy, Laura H Rosenberger, Christel N Rushing, Dunya Atisha, Andrea L Pusic, Scott T Hollenbeck, Terry Hyslop, E Shelley Hwang

Abstract readComparative Study

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

13citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

Arm morbidity and financial difficulty in breast cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
Article
Breast satisfaction and health-related quality of life following total mastectomy, breast-conserving surgery, or immediate breast reconstruction in Japanese patients with breast cancer: multicentre cross-sectional controlled study (Reborn).BJS open · 2025
Article
Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life after breast-conserving surgery, mastectomy, and breast reconstruction assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024
Article
Changes in Skin Paddle Morphology after Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
Article
Long-Term Patient-Reported Arm Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024
Article
Minimal Scar Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Skin-sparing Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
Article
Trends in emotional functioning and psychosocial wellbeing in breast cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures.BMC women's health · 2023
Article
Quality of breast reconstruction service at a university hospital as assessed by the patients.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2023
Article
Defining the Value of Breast Reconstruction Surgeons: Quantifying Clinical Encounter and Operative Volume at an Academic Center.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
Article
Increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients' engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making through a shared decision-making intervention (A231701CD): protocol for a cluster randomised clinical trial.BMJ open · 2022
Article
Community collaboration to improve access and outcomes in breast cancer reconstruction: protocol for a mixed-methods qualitative research study.BMJ open · 2022
Article
Propensity Scoring in Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis and Best Practice Guide.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
Article
Patient-reported outcomes among women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing breast conservation versus single or double mastectomy.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Lily R MundyFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Laura H RosenbergerFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Christel N RushingFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Dunya AtishaFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Andrea L PusicFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Scott T HollenbeckFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Terry HyslopFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

E Shelley HwangFrom the Divisions of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center; the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University; the Division of Plastic Surgery, Henry Ford Health System; and the Division of Plastic Surgery, Depart PRS-D-19-00046 ment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026

$347.4M

NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer survival continues to improve, with women living longer after treatment. It is not well understood how long-term satisfaction and well-being differ following treatment or how types of reconstruction differ when compared to the norm.

methodsIn a propensity-matched sample, the authors compared patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer patients at various time intervals from surgery with normative BREAST-Q data. All data were obtained using the Army of Women, an online community fostering breast cancer research. Breast cancer patients were stratified by surgical treatment and reconstruction type. Regression lines were estimated and differences in slope tested between cancer patients and noncancer controls.

resultsThe authors compared normative (n = 922) and breast cancer (n = 4343) cohorts in a propensity-matched analysis. Among the breast cancer patients, 49.4 percent underwent lumpectomy, 17.0 percent underwent mastectomy, 21.7 percent underwent implant reconstruction, and 11.9 percent underwent autologous reconstruction. Median time since surgery was 4.7 years, with 21.1 percent more than 10 years after surgery. At the time of survey, breast cancer patients reported higher Satisfaction with Breasts and Psychosocial Well-being scores compared to noncancer controls (p < 0.01), with the cohorts undergoing lumpectomy and autologous reconstruction both reporting higher scores than the normative controls. After mastectomy, scores averaged lower than the noncancer controls, but improved over time. However, all breast cancer groups reported significantly lower Physical Well-being scores than the noncancer cohort (all p < 0.01).

conclusionsBreast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy or autologous reconstruction reported higher psychosocial well-being compared to noncancer controls. These differences were influenced both by time since treatment and by choice of surgical procedure.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDatasets as TopicFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammaplastyMastectomyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32097289

DOI10.1097/PRS.0000000000006535

PMCPMC8917794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceTDM

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.