The PRoBe-SH: A Close-Coded Patient-Reported Survey Tool to Assess Breast Surgery History PRoBe-SH: patient-reported survey tool

Main Article Content

Janelle Sobecki https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6107-8408
Emily Abramsohn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2016-1170
Alexes Hazen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3244-3976
Jennifer Makelarski https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6484-1675
Chenab Navalkha https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-7308
Kristen Wroblewski https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9297-0394
Stacy Lindau https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9054-6538

Keywords

Breast surgical history; Breast cancer; Patient-reported measure

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer often involves several surgical procedures. Women with breast cancer are asked repeatedly to report their breast surgery history, often elicited in an open-ended format and relying on patient recall. Electronic medical records (EMR) and other medical documentation are not always readily available. No comprehensive, validated patient-reported measure of breast surgery history exists. We developed a close-coded, digital survey tool to elicit patient-reported breast surgery history (PRoBe-SH).


Methods: We administered the PRoBe-SH survey tool to a convenience sample of patients with a history of breast cancer. We compared PRoBe-SH data to both surgical history documented in patients’ EMR and open-ended surgical history ascertained from patient-completed clinic intake forms. Sensitivity/specificity analyses and McNemar’s tests were performed.


Results: Data from fifty patients (median age 53.5 years, range 31-71, 70% non-Hispanic white) were analyzed. The sensitivity of the PRoBe-SH for accurately identifying surgical history was 100% for mastectomy, lumpectomy 96%, mastectomy sidedness 100% (right) and 100% (left), lumpectomy sidedness 36% (right) 55% (left), lymphadenectomy 64%, breast reconstruction 89%, and presence of a native nipple 100% (right) and 100% (left). Open-ended surgical history was more than 90% sensitive for identifying mastectomy and lumpectomy only. The PRoBe-SH was significantly more sensitive than open-ended surgical history for identifying mastectomy sidedness (P<0.01), lymphadenectomy (P<0.01), and breast reconstruction (P<0.01).


Conclusion: Ascertaining accurate breast surgical history is important in the context of clinical care and for research purposes. The PRoBe-SH is a comprehensive, highly sensitive alternative to obtaining an open-ended breast surgical history when EMR data or other medical documentation are not available.

References

1. Lautner M, Lin H, Shen Y, Parker C, Kuerer H, Shaitelman S, et al. Disparities in the Use of Breast-Conserving Therapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015 Aug;150(8):778-86. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1102.
2. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jul;66(4):271-89. doi: 10.3322/caac.21349.
3. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015 Jan;150(1):9-16. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895.
4. Morrow M, Li Y, Alderman AK, Jagsi R, Hamilton AS, Graff JJ, et al. Access to breast reconstruction after mastectomy and patient perspectives on reconstruction decision making. JAMA Surg. 2014 Oct;149(10):1015-21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.548.
5. N.C.C. Network. "Breast Cancer (Version 4.2020)." Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_blocks.pdf (accessed June 21, 2020.)
6. Hampton JR, Harrison MJ, Mitchell JR, Prichard JS, Seymour C. Relative contributions of history-taking, physical examination, and laboratory investigation to diagnosis and management of medical outpatients. Br Med J. 1975 May 31;2(5969):486-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5969.486.
7. St Sauver JL, Hagen PT, Cha SS, Bagniewski SM, Mandrekar JN, Curoe AM, et al. Agreement between patient reports of cardiovascular disease and patient medical records. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005 Feb;80(2):203-10. doi: 10.4065/80.2.203.
8. Mitchell RJ, Brewster D, Campbell H, Porteous ME, Wyllie AH, Bird CC, et al. Accuracy of reporting of family history of colorectal cancer. Gut. 2004 Feb;53(2):291-5. doi: 10.1136/gut.2003.027896.
9. Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S. Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA. 2004 Sep 22;292(12):1480-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.12.1480.
10. Liu Y, Diamant AL, Thind A, Maly RC. Validity of self-reports of breast cancer treatment in low-income, medically underserved women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;119(3):745-51. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0447-5.
11. Maunsell E, Drolet M, Ouhoummane N, Robert J. Breast cancer survivors accurately reported key treatment and prognostic characteristics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):364-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.005.
12. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Breast Cancer and Reconstruction: Normative Data for Interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 May;139(5):1046e-1055e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003241.
13. van Velthoven MH, Mastellos N, Majeed A, O'Donoghue J, Car J. Feasibility of extracting data from electronic medical records for research: an international comparative study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jul 13;16:90. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0332-1.
14. Norman SA, Miller LT, Erikson HB, Norman MF, McCorkle R. Development and validation of a telephone questionnaire to characterize lymphedema in women treated for breast cancer. Phys Ther. 2001 Jun;81(6):1192-205.
15. Phillips KA, Milne RL, Buys S, Friedlander ML, Ward JH, McCredie MR, Giles GG, Hopper JL. Agreement between self-reported breast cancer treatment and medical records in a population-based Breast Cancer Family Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4679-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.002.
16. Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Defining a place for nipple sparing mastectomy in modern breast care: an evidence based review. Breast J. 2013 Nov-Dec;19(6):571-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01220.x.
17. Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd. The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987 Nov;80(5):699-704. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198711000-00007.
18. El-Tamer MB, Ward BM, Schifftner T, Neumayer L, Khuri S, Henderson W. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg. 2007 May;245(5):665-71. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000245833.48399.9a.
19. A. C. S. (ACS). "Treatment of Breast Cancer Stages I-III." Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/treatment/treatment-of-breast-cancer-by-stage/treatment-of-breast-cancer-stages-i-iii.html (accessed November 21, 2020.
20. McPhee SJ, Nguyen TT, Shema SJ, Nguyen B, Somkin C, Vo P, et al. Validation of recall of breast and cervical cancer screening by women in an ethnically diverse population. Prev Med. 2002 Nov;35(5):463-73. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1096.

Article Statistics :Views : 67 | Downloads : 31 : 11