Health outcome and economic measurement in breast cancer surgery: challenges and opportunities

References

• Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun M. Cancer statistics 2009. Cancer J. Clin.55, 10–30 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy T, Stewart A, Bilimoria K, Patel-Parekh L, Sener S, Winchester D. Treatment trends and factors associated with survival in T1aN0 and T1bN0 breast cancer patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol.14, 2918–2927 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asken M. Psychoemotional aspects of mastectomy: a review of recent literature. Am. J. Psychiatry132, 56–59 (1975).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberfarb P, Maurer L, Crouthamel C. Psychosocial aspects of neoplastic disease: I. Functional status of breast cancer patients during different treatment regimens. Am. J. Psychiatry137, 450–455 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransfield D. Breast cancer and sexual functioning: a review of the literature and implications for future research. Int. J. Psychiatry Med12(3), 197–211 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teimourian B, Adham M. Survey of patient’s responses to breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg.9, 321–325 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schain W. Breast reconstruction: update of psychosocial and pragmatic concerns. Cancer68, 1170–1175 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland J, Holland J, Chaglassian T, Kinne D. Psychological response to breast reconstruction: expectations for and impact on postmastectomy functioning. Psychosomatics34, 241–250 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins E, Cederna P, Lowery J et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast. Recon. Surg.106, 1014–1025 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Society of Plastic Surgeons. National Plastic Surgery Statistics. American Society of Plastic Surgeons, IL, USA (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Crossing the Quality Chasm: The IOM Health Care Quality Initiative. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Rowland J. Survivorship research: past, present and future. In: Oncology: An Evidence-Based Approach. Chang A, Ganz P, Hayes D et al. (Eds). Springer, NY, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Cano S, Klassen A, Pusic A. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast. Reconstr. Surg123, 98E–106E (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, Boston, MA, USA (1993).
   Google Scholar
• WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med.46, 1569–1585 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovrics P, Cornacchi S, Barnabi F, Whelan T, Goldsmith C. The feasibility and responsiveness of the health utilities index in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Qual. Life Res.17, 333–345 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Oudsten B, Van Heck G, Van der Steeg A, Roukema J, De Vries J. The WHOQOL-100 has good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 195–205 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson N, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl Cancer Inst.85, 365–376 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella D, Tulsky D, Gray G et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol.11, 570–579 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprangers M, Groenvold M, Arraras J et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: first results from a three-country field study. J. Clin. Oncol.10, 2756–2768 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Brady M, Cella D, Mo F et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assesment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Quality-of-Life instrument. J. Clin. Oncol.15, 974–986 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gui G, Tan S, Faliakou E, Choy C, A’Hern R, Ward A. Immediate breast reconstruction using biodimensional anatomical permanent expander implants: a prospective analysis of outcome and patient satisfaction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.111, 125–138 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polivy J. Psychological effects of mastectomy on a woman’s feminine self-concept. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.164, 77–87 (1977).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A, Al Ghazal S. A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer37, 189–197 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feather B, Wainstock J. Perceptions of postmastectomy patients. Part II. Social support and attitudes towards mastectomy. Cancer Nurs.12, 301–309 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton A, Krishnan L, Collins C. Form or function? Part 1. Subjective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer91, 2273–2281 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pusic A, Chen C, Cano S et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast. Recon. Surg.120, 823–837 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Advisory Committee for the Medical Outcome Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual. life Res.11, 193–205 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Sunu C, Pignone M. Patient reported outcomes of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a systematic review. J. Am. Coll. Surg.209, 123–133 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medical Outcome Trust. Involving physicians in health outcomes assessment. Med. Outcomes Trust Bull.4, 1 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labelling Claims. Food and Drugs Administration, MD, USA (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Cano S, Browne J, Lamping D, Roberts A, McGrouther D, Black N. The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (POS-Hand/Arm): a new patient-based outcome measure. J. Hand Surg..29, 477–485 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Stenner AJ, Smith M, Burdick D. Towards a theory of construct definition. J. Educ. Measure20, 305–316 (1983).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D. Clinimetrics vs. psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction. J. Clin. Epidem.56, 1142–1145 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobart J, Cano S, Zajicek J, Thompson A. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol.6, 1094–105 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: a Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol. Assess.2(14), i-iv, 1–74 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: a Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (4th Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Novick MR. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J. Math. Psychol.3, 1–18 (1966).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers P, Hand D. Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. J. Royal Stat. Soc.165, 1–21 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Traub R. Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educ. Measure. Issues Pract.8–14 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Brooks/Cole, CA, USA (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA (1968).
   Google Scholar
• Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol. Assess.13, 1–200 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Danish Institute for Education Research, Copenhagen, Denmark (1960).
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal: measurements, however must be interval. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab.70, 857–860 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. MESA, Chicago, IL, USA (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Dorans NJ, Flaugher R et al.Computerized Adaptive Testing: a Primer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Cella D. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual. Life Res.6, 595–600 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klassen A, Pusic A, Scott A, Klok J, Cano S. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health9, 11–18 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pusic A, Klassen A, Scott A, Klok J, Cordeiro P, Cano S. Development of a new patient reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast. Recon. Surg.124, 345–353 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cano S, Pusic A, Klassen A et al. The BREAST-Q©: a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery. Proceedings from the 16th Annual conference of the International Society of Quality of Life Research. New Orleans, LA, USA, 28–31 October (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Reavey P, McCarthy C, Scott A et al. Patients’ perception of abdominal wall morbidity following abdominally-based autologous tissue breast reconstruction: an outcomes analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.123, 11 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Hu E, Pusic A, Waljee J et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.124, 1–8 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick D, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal – a review. J. Health Econ.5(1), 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D. Health utility estimation. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.2(2), 99–108 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feeny D, Torrance G, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Spilker B (Ed). Lippincott-Raven Publishers, PA, USA, 85–95 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials. 2nd Edition. Fayers P, Hays R (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 405–429 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein W Cost–Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int. J Tech. Assess. Health Care5, 559–575 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQoL Group. Ann. Med.33, 337–343 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance G et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med. Care40, 113–128 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, Duku E, Furlong W. A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery: health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.120, 13–26 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, Duku E, Furlong W. Methodology and measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments: a prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery. Health Qual. Life Outcomes22, 44 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Polsky D, Keating N, Weeks J, Schulman K. Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences. Med. Care40, 1068–1079 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, Standard Gamble, and Health Utilities Index mark 2 and mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual. Life Res.13, 1659–1670 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap in post-mastectomy reconstruction: a cost–effectiveness analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.113, 1650 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoma A, Jansen L, Sprague S, Duku E. A cost–utility analysis: comparison of deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and superior inferior epigastric artery flap. Can. J. Plast. Surg.16, 215–224 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten S, Feeny D. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. CMAJ140, 1441–1448 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr-Hill R. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J. Public Health Med.14, 236–249 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilkins E, Alderman A. Breast reconstruction practices in North America: current trends and future priorities. Sem. Plast. Surg.18, 149–155 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Temple C, Tse R, Bettger-Hahn M. Sensibility following innervated free TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.117, 2119–2127 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analogue scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med. Decision Making21, 329–334 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preminger B, Pusic A, McCarthy C, Verma N, Worku A, Cordeiro P. How should quality-of-life data be incorporated into a cost analysis of breast reconstruction? A consideration of implant versus free TRAM flap procedures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg.121, 1075–82 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoma A, Rockwell G, Strumas N, McKnight L. The use of cost–effectiveness analysis in plastic surgery clinical research. Clin. Plastic Surg.35, 285 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. A framework relating outcomes based education and the taxonomy of educational objectives. Stud. Educ. Eval.28, 35–59 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Implication and applications of modern test theory in the context of outcomes based research. Stud. Educ. Eval.28, 103–121 (2002).
   Google Scholar