Journals / Bağcılar Tıp Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

The Quality of Life Measurements Following Oncoplastic Breast-conserving Surgery

Meme Koruyucu Onkoplastik Cerrahi Sonrası Yaşam Kalitesinin Ölçümü

Pages
73–78
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Especially, the body image function [22 (15-29)] and health functions [10 (7-13)], such as breast & arm symptoms, were better in the patients who had higher scores (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) is a widely accepted surgical option among breast cancer patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We aimed to evaluate the histopathological findings of breast tumors and quality of life scores.Method: The clinical and pathological data of 49 female patients who underwent OBSC in University of Health Sciences Turkey, İstanbul Bağcılar Training and Research Hospital between January 2015 and January 2019 for breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Especially, the body image function [22 (15-29)] and health functions [10 (7-13)], such as breast & arm symptoms, were better in the patients who had higher scores (p
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) is a widely accepted surgical option among breast cancer patients. We aimed to evaluate the histopathological findings of breast tumors and quality of life scores.Method: The clinical and pathological data of 49 female patients who underwent OBSC in University of Health Sciences Turkey, İstanbul Bağcılar Training and Research Hospital between January 2015 and January 2019 for breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated. According to the location of the tumor, the racket method or J-mammoplasty techniqueswasselected.Qualityoflifeandpatientsatisfactionassessment questionnaire was performed.Results: The mean age was 48.1 (26-68) years. The most common incision pattern was the racket pattern (85%). The invasive ductal carcinoma (89.8%) was seen more than ductal carcinoma in situ (6.1%) and papillary carcinoma (4.1%). The distance to the surgical margin was approximately 7.1 mm (1-20). The estrogen receptor positivity was 74.2% (5-100%) and progesterone receptor positivity was 61.8% (5-98%). 61.2% received chemotherapy (100%, radiotherapy). Based on questionnaires, the score of quality of life and satisfaction was 34 (25-47). Especially, the body image function [22 (15-29)] and health functions [10 (7-13)], such as breast & arm symptoms, were better in the patients who had higher scores (p

Özet

Amaç: Meme koruyucu onkoplastik cerrahi (MKOC), onkolojik ve cerrahi alanda yaygın olduğu kadar meme kanseri hastaları arasında da oldukça fazla kabul görmektedir. Bu çalışmada, MKOC uygulanan hastaların meme tümörlerinin histopatolojik sonuçlarını ve yaşam kalitesi skorlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Yöntem:SağlıkBilimleriÜniversitesi,İstanbulBağcılarEğitimveAraştırma Hastanesi’nde Ocak 2015 - Ocak 2019 tarihleri arasında meme kanseri nedeniyle MKOC uygulanan 49 kadın hastanın klinik ve patolojik verileriretrospektifolarakincelendi.Tümörünlokalizasyonunagöre,insizyon paternleri olarak raket yöntemi veya J-mamoplasti kullanılmıştır. Hastalara yaşam kalitesi ve hasta memnuniyeti değerlendirme anketi yapıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 48,1 (26-68) yıl idi. En yaygın insizyon paterni raket paterniydi (%85). En sık görülen histopatolojik bulgu invaziv duktal karsinom (%89,8), en az görülenler ise in situ duktal karsinom (%6,1) ve papiller karsinomdu (%4,1). Tümörlerin cerrahi sınıra uzaklığı yaklaşık 7,1 mm (1-20) idi. Östrojen reseptörü pozitifliği ortalama%74,2(%5-%100)veprogesteronreseptörüpozitifliğiortalaması %61,8 (%5-%98) idi. Hastaların % 61,2’si kemoterapi, %100 radyoterapi aldı. Anket sonuçlarına göre, ortalama yaşam kalitesi ve memnuniyet skoru ortalaması 34 (25-47) idi. Hayat kalite skoru daha iyi olan hastalarda, özellikle vücut imajı fonksiyonu [22 (16-29)] ve meme ve kol semptomları gibi sağlık fonksiyonları [10 (7-13)] daha iyi idi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

YİĞİTBAŞ, H., ÇELİK, A., ERCAN, G., ALTINEL, Y., HACIM, N. A., AKBAŞ, A., TOKOÇİN, M., VARTANOĞLU, T. (2022). The Quality of Life Measurements Following Oncoplastic Breast-conserving Surgery. Bağcılar Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 73–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/458938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Urban C, Lima R, Schunemann E, Spautz C, Rabinovich I, Anselmi K. Oncoplastic principles in breast-conserving surgery. Breast 2011;20(Suppl 3):S92-S95
  2. Franceschini G, Terribile DA, Magno S, Fabbri C, Accetta C, Di Leone A, et al. Update on oncoplastic breast surgery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2012;16(11):1530-1540
  3. Kaviani A, Sodagari N, Sheikhbahaei S, Eslami V, Hafezi-Nejad N, Safavi A, et al. From radical mastectomy to breast-conserving therapy and oncoplastic breast surgery: a narrative review comparing oncological result, cosmetic outcome, quality of life, and health economy. ISRN Oncol 2013;2013:742462
  4. Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Winters HA, Rietveld DH, Meijer S, Bloemers FW, et al. A systematic review of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: current weaknesses and future prospects. Ann Surg 2013;257(4):609-620
  5. Silverstein MJ, Mai T, Savalia N, Vance F, Guerra L. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery: the new paradigm. J Surg Oncol 2014;110(1):82-89
  6. Macmillan RD, McCulley SJ. Oncoplastic breast surgery: what, when and for whom? Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2016;8:112-117
  7. Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg 2014;72(2):145-149
  8. Hau E, Browne L, Capp A, Delaney GP, Fox C, Kearsley JH, et al. The impact of breast cosmetic and functional outcomes on quality of life: long-term results from the St. George and Wollongong randomized breast boost trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013;139(1):115-123
  9. Demirci S, Eser E, Ozsaran Z, Tankisi D, Aras AB, Ozaydemir G, et al. Validation of the Turkish versions of EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 modules in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12(5):1283-1287
  10. Nguyen J, Popovic M, Chow E, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Chu D, et al. EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B for the assessment of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. J Comp Eff Res 2015;4(2):157-166
  11. Özmen V. Breast cancer in the world and turkey. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi 2008;4(1):7-12
  12. Öz F. Hastalık yaşantısında belirsizlik. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi 2001;12(1):61-68
  13. Henson HK. Breast cancer and sexuality. Sex Disabil 2002;20(4):261-275
  14. Buckley CT, Gren LB, Schnurr PS. Truma, PTSB and Physical Health. In Assesing Psychological Trauma and PTSD, Wilson JP, Keane TM (editors). London: Academic Pres, 2004, p. 444-448
  15. Karamanoğlu AY, Özer FG. Mastektomili hastalarda evde bakım. Meme Sağlığı