ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
The Impact of Time and Place on BREAST-Q REACT: A Multi-Institutional Examination.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Impact of Time and Place on BREAST-Q REACT: A Multi-Institutional Examination.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReference values provide clinically meaningful context for interpreting patient-reported outcome measures. However, these values may evolve over time with changes in reconstructive practice and may differ across cultural settings. This study compares BREAST-Q scores across time periods and countries.
methodPatients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction and completed the BREAST-Q at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC +) between 2007 and 2022 were included. BREAST-Q scores from an original MSKCC cohort (2007-2017) were compared with a recent MSKCC cohort (2018-2022) to evaluate temporal differences, and with a Dutch cohort (2013-2022) to assess geographic variation.
resultsA total of 7,199 MSKCC patients (3,243 original; 3,956 recent), and 444 MUMC+ patients were included. Compared with the original MSKCC cohort, the recent cohort demonstrated improved Physical Well-being of the Chest among implant-based reconstruction patients at preoperative (81 [74, 91] vs. 85 [74, 100]) and at 2-years postoperative (76 [66, 85] vs. 80 [64, 92]). Other BREAST-Q domains, on the other hand, declined in both implant-based and autologous reconstruction groups. Compared with MSKCC patients, the Dutch cohort reported lower Physical Well-being of the Chest, but higher Sexual Well-being. For example, at 2-years postoperative, MUMC+ patients scored 10 points higher on Sexual Well-being than MSKCC patients (60 [47, 72] vs. 50 [36, 66], p < 0.001).
conclusionBREAST-Q reference values vary over time and across cultural contexts. Contemporary population-specific reference values may improve interpretation of patient-reported outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.