| Title |
Change of Patient-Reported Aesthetic Outcome Over Time and Identification of Factors Characterizing Poor Aesthetic Outcome After Breast-Conserving Therapy: Long-Term Results of a Prospective Cohort Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-015-4943-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
André Hennigs, Hannah Biehl, Geraldine Rauch, Michael Golatta, Patrik Tabatabai, Christoph Domschke, Sarah Schott, Markus Wallwiener, Florian Schütz, Christof Sohn, Jörg Heil |
| Abstract |
We analyzed the change of aesthetic outcome (AO) over time and explored factors characterizing poor AO after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This prospective single-center cohort study included 849 patients preoperatively planned for BCS between September 2007 and December 2011. Long-term follow-up was made once in 2013. AO was measured by the Aesthetic Status (AS) of the Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale questionnaire. Clinical, surgical, and pathologic variables were evaluated to identify predictors of poor AO. We applied single factor variance analyses and univariable logistic regression analyses for outcome analysis. The long-term follow-up rate in 2013 was 73 % (621 nonrecurrent with final BCS). A poor or fair AO was reported in 30 (4.8 %) and 98 (15.8 %) of these 621 patients, respectively. Single factor variance analysis showed a negative impact of higher specimen weight on AO (p < 0.001). Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed the following risk factors for poor AO: radial breast incision [odds ratio (OR) 1.97], periareolar incision (OR 1.85), fishmouth-shaped incision with resection of the nipple-areola complex (OR 8.12), impaired wound healing (OR 3.14), and seroma (OR 2.16). No patient rating her AO as fair or poor shortly after BCS improved in the long-term follow-up. The incidence of poor AO is relatively rare but increases in the long-term follow-up. Patients experiencing poor AO after BCS are likely to remain unsatisfied with the outcome over time. Factors predicting unfavorable AO can assist preoperative planning with regards to the choice between simple breast conserving techniques or more complex oncoplastic procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 42% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,119
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,981
of 6,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,462
of 285,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#78
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.