QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER BREAST CONSERVATION OR MASTECTOMY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: For early breast cancer, survival after breast conservation is similar to that after mastectomy. Some women may not have a clear preference and wish to have further information about quality of life experienced after the alternative treatments. This paper describes a systematic review of randomized trials on mastectomy versus breast conservation for which there are data on quality of life or psyehosocial outcomes. Methods: Literature was reviewed to find all randomized controlled trials comparing breast conservation to mastectomy, with quality of life or psychological effects as an outcome. Studies were then critically appraised by two reviewers independently and any disagreements about their quality and results resolved by discussion. Results: A total of six randomized trials met our inclusion criteria. In general, they are of poor quality. Women who had breast conservation had a more favourable body image of themselves than those who had mastectomy in all five studies in which it was examined. The evidence was statistically inconclusive for all the other dimensions measured, namely perceptions of psychological health, sexual health, physical health, fear of the future and global quality of life. Radiotherapy may be a determinant of poorer psychological health and body image. Conclusions: Apart from body image, it is unclear whether breast conservation or mastectomy results in better psychosocial outcomes. Moreover, the studies were done before evidence was available to inform women about the equivalence of survival with these alternative treatments. Therefore there is inadequate information available to help many women decide about their choice of treatment in the future. Preference trials should be conducted, using standardized quality‐of‐life measures, in which women who are uncertain about which treatment to choose are randomized to breast conservation or mastectomy.