Systematic Review of Breast-Q: A Tool to Evaluate Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction

References

• World Health Organization. Breast cancer [Internet]; 2020 [cited September5, 2021.]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer. Accessed November29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• HardingC, PompeiF, BurmistrovD, WilsonR. Use of mastectomy for overdiagnosed breast cancer in the United States: analysis of the SEER 9 cancer registries. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;2019:e5072506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DragunAE, HuangB, TuckerTC, SpanosWJ. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18(4):318–325.22607016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DragunAE, PanJ, RileyEC, et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates: a 14-year report from a comprehensive cancer center. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(4):375–380.22643566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HeidariM, ShahbaziS, GhodusiM. Evaluation of body esteem and mental health in patients with breast cancer after mastectomy. J Midlife Health. 2015;6(4):173.26903758
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ArroyoJMG, LópezMLD. Psychological problems derived from mastectomy: a qualitative study. Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;4(2011):e132461.
   Google Scholar
• IlonzoN, TsangA, TsantesS, EstabrookA, ThuMAM. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a ten-year analysis of trends and immediate postoperative outcomes. Breast. 2017;32:7–12.27988412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BellavanceEC, KesmodelSB. Decision-making in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing women’s choices for mastectomy and breast conserving surgery. Front Oncol. 2016;29(6):74.
   Google Scholar
• SunCS, CantorSB, ReeceGP, FingeretMC, CrosbyMA, MarkeyMK. Helping patients make choices about breast reconstruction: a decision analysis approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):597–608.25357022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FingeretMC, NipomnickSW, CrosbyMA, ReeceGP. Developing a theoretical framework to illustrate associations among patient satisfaction, body image and quality of life for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39(6):673–681.23380309
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CutressRI. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: guidelines for best practice [Internet]. In: RainsburyD, WillettA, editors. British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons; 2012: 68.[cited September 5, 2021]: Available from: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/345578/. Accessed November29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• SchmaussD, MachensH-G, HarderY. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Front Surg. 2015;2:71.26835456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeldringT, SmithSMS. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;4(6):61–68.
   Google Scholar
• LipscombJ, GotayCC, SnyderCF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(5):278–300.17855485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CanoSJ, KlassenA, PusicAL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(3):98e–106e.19116542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BlackN. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;28(346):f167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PusicAL, KlassenAF, ScottAM, KlokJA, CordeiroPG, CanoSJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–353.19644246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PusicAL, ChenCM, CanoS, et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(4):823–837.17805107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LiuL, BranfordO, MehiganS. BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(8):e1904.30254830
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeanNR, CrittendenT. A five-year experience of measuring clinical effectiveness in a breast reconstruction service using the BREAST-Q patient reported outcomes measure: a cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(11):1469–1477.27639422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372):n71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HigginsJP, SavovićJ, PageMJ, ElbersRG, SterneJA. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019: 205–228. [cited May 4, 2021]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119536604.ch8. Accessed November29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• McGuinnessLA, HigginsJPT. Risk‐of‐bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk‐of‐bias assessments. Res Syn Meth. 2021;12(1):55–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MunnZ, MoolaS, LisyK, RiitanoD, TufanaruC. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Health. 2015;13:147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QureshiAA, OdomEB, ParikhRP, MyckatynTM, TenenbaumMM. Patient-reported outcomes of aesthetics and satisfaction in immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy with implants and fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(9):999–1008.28379284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CasellaD, Di TarantoG, OnestiMG, GrecoM, RibuffoD. A retrospective comparative analysis of risk factors and outcomes in direct-to-implant and two-stages pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: BMI and radiotherapy as new selection criteria of patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(8):1357–1363.30827802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SrinivasaDR, GarveyPB, QiJ, et al. Direct-to-Implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5):869–877.29068918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BennettKG, QiJ, KimHM, et al. Association of fat grafting with patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(10):944–950.28658472
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DavisGB, LangJE, PericM, et al. Breast reconstruction satisfaction rates at a large county hospital. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72:S61–5.24691306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PirroO, MestakO, VindigniV, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after implant versus autologous tissue breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(1):e1217.28203513
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KliftoKM, AravindP, MajorM, et al. Differences between breast cancer reconstruction and institutionally established normative data using the BREAST-Q reconstruction module: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(6):1371–1379.32459767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SantosaKB, QiJ, KimHM, HamillJB, PusicAL, WilkinsEG. Effect of patient age on outcomes in breast reconstruction: results from a multicenter prospective study. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(6):745–754.27806906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ReindersFCJ, Young-AfatDA, BatenburgMCT, et al. Higher reconstruction failure and less patient-reported satisfaction after post mastectomy radiotherapy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction compared to immediate autologous breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer. 2020;27(3):435–444.31858435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SantosaKB, QiJ, KimHM, HamillJB, WilkinsEG, PusicAL. Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):891–899.29926096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KlementKA, HijjawiJB, LoGiudiceJA, AlghoulM, Omesiete-AdejareP. Microsurgical breast reconstruction in the obese: a better option than tissue expander/implant reconstruction? Plast. Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(3):539–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-LópezJC, García-EspinozaJA, Flores-SotoD, et al. Patient satisfaction index and quality of life measurement with Breast-Q after breast reconstruction in a plastic surgery center in Mexico. J Biosci Med. 2021;9(6):94–105.
   Google Scholar
• BritoÍM, FernandesA, AndresenC, BarbosaR, RibeiroM, Valença-FilipeR. Patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction: how much do timing and surgical technique matter? Eur. J Plast Surg. 2020;43(6):809–818.
   Google Scholar
• RindomMB, GunnarssonGL, LautrupMD, et al. Good health-related quality-of-life and high patient-reported satisfaction after delayed breast reconstruction with pedicled flaps from the back. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(8):1752–1757.33676866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LudolphI, HorchRE, HarlanderM, et al. Is there a rationale for autologous breast reconstruction in older patients? A retrospective single center analysis of quality of life, complications and comorbidities after DIEP or ms-TRAM flap using the BREAST-Q. Breast J. 2015;21(6):588–595.26400037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhongT, McCarthyC, MinS, et al. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after autologous tissue breast reconstruction: a prospective analysis of early postoperative outcomes. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1701–1709.22025176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SteinMJ, ArnaoutA, LichtensteinJB, et al. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes between Alloderm and Dermacell in immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: a randomized control trial. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(1):41–47.32893151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SorkinM, QiJ, KimHM, et al. Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):1091–1100.28806288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CasellaD, Di TarantoG, MarcascianoM, et al. Nipple-sparing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with TiLoop® Bra mesh in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: a prospective study of long-term and patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. Breast. 2018;39:8–13.29455110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacadamSA, HoAL, CookEF Jr, LennoxPA, PusicAL. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes among saline and silicone implant recipients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):761–771.20009795
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CaputoGG, ZingarettiN, KiprianidisI, et al. Quality of Life and early functional evaluation in direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a comparative study between prepectoral versus dual-plane reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021;21(4):344–351.33308993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GhilliM, MarinielloMD, CamilleriV, et al. PROMs in post-mastectomy care: patient self-reports (BREAST-QTM) as a powerful instrument to personalize medical services. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46(6):1034–1040.31812290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SinhaS, RuskinO, D’AngeloA, McCombeD, MorrisonWA, WebbA. Are overweight and obese patients who receive autologous free-flap breast reconstruction satisfied with their postoperative outcome? A single-centre study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(1):30–36.26481926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SongD, SlaterK, PapsdorfM, et al. Autologous breast reconstruction in women older than 65 years versus women younger than 65 years: a multi-center analysis. Ann of Plast Surg. 2016;76(2):155–163.26637165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthyCM, KlassenAF, CanoSJ, et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer. 2010;116(24):5584–5591.21136577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NegenbornVL, DikmansREG, BoumanM-B, WilschutJA, MullenderMG, SalzbergCA. Patient-reported outcomes after ADM-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(2):e1654.29616167
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CanoSJ, KlassenAF, ScottAM, CordeiroPG, PusicAL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(2):293–302.22286412
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FuzesiS, CanoSJ, KlassenAF, AtishaD, PusicAL. Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study. Breast. 2017;33:44–49.28279888
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AnagnostopoulosF, MyrgianniS. Body image of Greek breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy or breast conserving surgery. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2009;16(4):311–321.19701698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KoçanS, GürsoyA. Body image of women with breast cancer after mastectomy: a qualitative research. J Breast Health. 2016;12(4):145–150.28331752
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DuggalCS, MetcalfeD, SackeyfioR, CarlsonGW, LoskenA. Patient motivations for choosing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70(5):574–580.23542859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChunYS, VermaK, RosenH, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix and the risk of postoperative complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):429–436.20124828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DikmansREG, NegenbornVL, BoumanM-B, et al. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, Phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):251–258.28012977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AlbornozCR, MatrosE, McCarthyCM, et al. Implant breast reconstruction and radiation: a multicenter analysis of long-term health-related quality of life and satisfaction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(7):2159–2164.24740825
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KoppikerCB, NoorAU, DixitS, et al. Implant-based breast reconstruction with autologous lower dermal sling and radiation therapy outcomes. Indian J Surg. 2019;81(6):543–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RowlandJH, DesmondKA, MeyerowitzBE, BelinTR, WyattGE, GanzPA. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(17):1422–1429.10974078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NegenbornVL, Young-AfatDA, DikmansREG, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. The Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1205–1214.30104147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GilbertE, EmileeG, UssherJM, PerzJ. Sexuality after breast cancer: a review. Maturitas. 2010;66(4):397–407.20439140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SpectorDJ, MayerDK, KnaflK, PusicA. Women’s recovery experiences after breast cancer reconstruction surgery. J of Psychosoc Oncol. 2011;29(6):664–676.22035539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’ConnellR, DiMiccoR, KhabraK, et al. Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(1):79–89.27637781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DaviesC, HolcombeC, SkillmanJ, et al. Protocol: protocol for a mixed-method study to inform the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale multicentre study comparing the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of oncoplastic breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction in women unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (the ANTHEM Feasibility Study). BMJ Open. 2021;11:4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PotterS, HolcombeC, WardJA, et al. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(11):1360–1371.26179938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JaenssonM, DahlbergK, NilssonU. Factors influencing day surgery patients’ quality of postoperative recovery and satisfaction with recovery: a narrative review. Perioperative Med. 2019;8(1):3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BerningV, LaupheimerM, NüblingM, HeideggerT. Influence of quality of recovery on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery: a prospective observational cohort study. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(9):1088–1096.28510285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChenCM, CanoSJ, KlassenAF, et al. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures: quality of life in breast surgery. Breast J. 2010;16(6):587–597.21070435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OngWL, SchouwenburgMG, van BommelACM, et al. A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):677–685.28033439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LucasRE. Reevaluating the strengths and weaknesses of self- report measures of subjective well-being. In: E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.). Handbook of Well-Being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF publishers; 2018:12. doi: nobascholar.com
   Google Scholar
• RanieriJ, FiascaF, GuerraF, PerilliE, MatteiA, Di GiacomoD. Examining the post-operative well-being of women who underwent mammoplasty: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry. 2021;29(12):645102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AllenRJ, SobtiN, PatelAR, et al. Laterality and patient-reported outcomes following autologous breast reconstruction with free abdominal tissue: an 8-year examination of BREAST-Q data. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(5):964–975.33141527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KoslowS, PharmerLA, ScottAM, et al. Long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implant reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3422–3429.23720070
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MénezT, MichotA, TamburinoS, WeigertR, PinsolleV. Multicenter evaluation of quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction, a long-term retrospective study. Ann Chir Plast Esthét Elsevier. 2017;63(2):126–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RazzanoS, MarongiuF, WadeR, FigusA. Optimizing DIEP flap Insetting for immediate unilateral breast reconstruction: a prospective cohort study of patient-reported aesthetic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):261e–70e.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HuES, PusicAL, WaljeeJF, et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):1–8.19568038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PusicAL, MatrosE, FineN, et al. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the mastectomy reconstruction outcomes consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(22):2499–2506.28346808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ShekhawatL, BusheriL, DixitS, PatelC, DharU, KoppikerC. Patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction surgery and therapeutic mammoplasty: prospective evaluation 1-year post-surgery with BREAST-Q questionnaire. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2015;6(4):356–362.27065661
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DieterichM, AngresJ, StubertJ, StachsA, ReimerT, GerberB. Patient-reported outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction alone or in combination with a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh – a detailed analysis of the BREAST-Q and overview of the literature. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015;75(7):692–701.26257406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SewartE, TurnerNL, ConroyEJ, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh. BJS Open. 2021;5(1):zraa063.33609398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EltahirY, BosmaE, TeixeiraN, WerkerPMN, de BockGH. Satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes of breast reconstruction: investigations into the correlation between the patients’ Breast-Q outcome and the judgment of panels. JPRAS Open. 2020;12(24):60–70.
   Google Scholar
• OchoaO, Garza IIIR, PisanoS, et al. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported satisfaction and health-related quality of life following DIEP flap breast reconstruction: relationship with body mass index. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1589–1600.30907803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SpindlerN, EbelF, BriestS, WallochnyS, LangerS. Quality of life after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and simultaneous reconstruction using pre-pectoral silicone implants. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;13(15):741–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TanML, IdrisDB, TeoLW, et al. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014;1(1):22–32.27981079
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OuZ, TangY, FuJ, DoucetteJ, MurimiIB. PCN482 patient-reported outcome measures in breast cancer: a systematic review of EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-B, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 development and validation. Value in Health. 2019;22:S530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NguyenJ, PopovicM, ChowE, 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):157–166.25825844
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MontazeriA, HarirchiI, VahdaniM, et al. The EORTC Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-BR23): translation and Validation study of the Iranian Version. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(2):177–184.10983481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashing-GiwaK, RosalesM. A cross-cultural validation of patient-reported outcomes measures: a study of breast cancers survivors. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(2):295–308.22367682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashing-GiwaKT, PadillaGV, TejeroJS, KimJ. Breast cancer survivorship in a multiethnic sample: challenges in recruitment and measurement. Cancer. 2004;101(3):450–465.15274058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RamadhantyZ, YarsoK, ProbandariA. Construct validity and reliability of Indonesian Version of RAND SF-36 quality of life questionnaire in breast cancer patients. Indonesian J Cancer. 2019;13:55.
   Google Scholar
• HahnEA, SegawaE, KaiserK, CellaD, SmithBD. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality of life instrument. JCO. 2015;33(15_suppl):e17753–e17753.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BradyMJ, CellaDF, MoF, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–986.9060536
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BellaO, CocchiaraR, de LucaA, et al. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (FACT-B+4): Italian version validation. Clin Ter. 2018;169:e151–4.30151547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KrishnanL, StantonAL, CollinsCA, ListonVE, JewellWR. Form or function? Part 2 objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy . Cancer. 2001;91(12):2282–2287.11413516
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar