© 2004 by Oxford University Press
2004 © Oxford University Press
Article |
Descriptive Review of the Literature on Breast Cancer Outcomes: 1990 Through 2000
J. Mandelblatt, C. Armetta, W. Liang (Department of Oncology and Cancer Clinical and Economic Outcomes Core, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.); K. R. Yabroff (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD and formerly Georgetown University Medical Center); W. Lawrence (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and formerly Georgetown University Medical Center)
Correspondence to: Jeanne Mandelblatt, M.D., M.P.H., Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 2233 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 317, Washington, D.C. 20007 (e-mail: mandelbj{at}georgetown.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TopNotes Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background: There is increasing interest in the incorporation of nonbiomedical outcomes into cancer research. Objective: Our goal was to review the use of nonbiomedical outcomes in research on breast cancer care. Data sources: We conducted a MEDLINE search of all studies on breast cancer quality of life, preferences, satisfaction, and economics that were published during the period from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2000. We also searched bibliographies of published articles. Study selection: We included original primary research and excluded reviews, methods papers, studies conducted outside the United States and Western Europe, or studies with fewer than 100 subjects. Data abstraction: Data were abstracted by using a structured tool. Data synthesis: There were 1089 articles identified; 230 were included. The greatest proportion of research focused on survivorship followed by screening. The most frequently reported outcomes were health-related quality of life (54%) followed by economic analyses (38%) and patient satisfaction (14%); only 9% measured patient preferences. Few studies included more than 10% nonwhite populations or focused on the elderly. No single instrument was used in more than 10% of the studies, and many authors developed de novo tools for use in their study. Methodologic flaws were prevalent and included use of nonstandard economic methods, insufficient power, low or differential response rates, and lack of control for baseline status. Conclusion: At present, outcomes measurement is variable in its approach and application to breast cancer care. More research is needed to develop practical approaches that are reliable, valid, and feasible in routine practice, that are applicable to diverse populations, and that can inform interventions to improve the quality of care across the full spectrum of services.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The most general health outcome measure is survival. For breast and other cancers, 5-year survival or the interval of disease-free survival has customarily been used to evaluate the success of treatment. Clinical events, such as severity of illness, tumor response, or stage shifts, have served as intermediate measures of outcome, principally because they are believed to be associated with differences in survival. For many diseases, such as advanced breast cancer, curative treatment is not always possible. Still, the outcomes of noncurative care may be very different. For instance, therapeutic strategies may be associated with similar survival but different toxic effects; alternatively, one therapy may yield better survival but more severe side effects, while another may offer poorer survival but better quality of life (QOL) during the patient's remaining months or years. Thus, decisions about alternative therapies are often based on QOL considerations, in addition to the likelihood of survival (1,2). Even when cures are possible, the costs of treatment may exceed an individual's or society's willingness to pay.
Although QOL has been an implied medical outcome since the time of Hippocrates (3,4), the landmark paper by Karnofsky et al. (5) marked the first explicit effort of physicians to systematically assess the impact of cancer treatments on the patient's QOL and not quantity of life. The next major tools developed to assess the impact of cancer and breast cancer therapy on QOL were not developed until the early 1980s. In the prototype, the Spitzer Quality of Life Index, QOL continued to be physician rated (6). Thus, physician assessment of symptoms, toxic effects, and/or QOL remained the standard in breast cancer outcomes research for almost four decades.
Increasing consumerism and patient participation in health care decisions, occurring in parallel with the growth in interest in outcomes of care in the late 1970s and the 1980s, set the stage for the development of patient-based measures of general and breast cancer-related QOL (4,7). For example, in 1979, Ware et al. (8) presented results validating a patient's self-reported measure of general health status from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment. Preliminary incorporation of such measures into cancer cooperative group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) occurred in the late 1980s (4,9).
Despite the recent explosion of QOL measures, particularly for breast cancer, routine incorporation of QOL outcomes into cancer research has been slow, and when used, outcomes have often been poorly measured. For instance, in a review of QOL measurement across a variety of medical conditions, Gill and Feinstein (10) found that 159 different measures of QOL were used in 75 studies, but fewer than half defined the target domains, only 17% included a patient-rated QOL, and just 9% elicited patients' preferences for health outcomes. Thus, there is a clear need for expanded research on practice-based outcomes measures. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible to collect, it is key that the research and clinical communities work together to take an active leadership role in this process.
To set the stage for such activities, we review the current use of health outcomes across the spectrum of breast cancer care—from primary prevention and early detection through survivorship or death—that could be used as the basis of a research agenda for measuring the outcomes of breast cancer care. This review is intended to serve as a focal point for discussion and extension of existing efforts to improve the outcomes of breast cancer services.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We conducted a qualitative review of the literature on breast cancer health outcomes across all phases of breast cancer care, including primary prevention, early detection, diagnosis, local treatment, adjuvant treatment, treatment of metastatic disease, survivorship, and the dying experience (11).
Conceptualization and Definition of Health Outcomes
Outcomes research is the study of the net effects of the health care process on the health and well-being of individuals and populations. As such, it can encompass a wide breadth of issues, including research on satisfaction with care, effectiveness, costs of care, and measurement of patient preferences and QOL. The current construct of QOL draws on earlier use of social indicators, such as housing and employment status, to measure the well-being of populations (12-14). Breslow (15) expanded the measurement of population well-being to include the World Health Organization definition of health as "not only the absence of disease or of disability, but an overall state of physical, mental, and social well-being." de Haes (16) later defined QOL as "the subjective evaluation of life as a whole," and Cella and Cherin (17) expanded this definition to include patients' satisfaction with their level of functioning compared with an ideal level. Both of these latter definitions reflect the importance of the individual's subjective experience; the second definition highlights the role of personal values, or preferences, for health outcomes (3).
The current consensus among outcomes researchers is that QOL is a multidimensional concept (3,18-23). The term "health-related QOL" (HRQOL) is used to refer to overall QOL in a health context (24). Although there is variation in the number and types of HRQOL domains suggested by different researchers, there is substantial overlap. Most researchers would agree that the following domains should be considered when deciding on HRQOL measures: 1) somatic concerns, such as pain and symptoms; 2) functional ability; 3) family well-being; 4) emotional well-being; 5) spirituality; 6) treatment satisfaction, including financial impact of illness; 7) future orientation; 8) sexuality, intimacy, and body image; 9) social functioning; 10) occupational functioning; and 11) preferences (3,22,25-28). The precise number and types of domains should be sufficiently broad to capture the impact of the illness or treatment on the patient but not to impose an undue burden on the patient or researcher; if the impact is largely unknown, the largest number of dimensions should be included while maintaining parsimony. Any one domain may be an outcome in and of itself.
A 1991 National Cancer Institute-sponsored workshop on the measurement of QOL in cancer clinical trials (22) recommended that assessment be multidimensional, include general and cancer-specific tools, be patient self-reported, be measured at more than one point in time, and be evaluated after controlling for relevant medical and sociodemographic characteristics. These considerations guided our data abstraction.
For the purposes of this review, health outcomes were defined as HRQOL or any of its domains, preferences for outcomes, satisfaction with health care or treatment decisions, and economic outcomes, such as costs of care, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), decision analysis, and cost-benefit analysis.
Data Sources
Multiple sources were used to identify all potential research for inclusion in the analysis. A MEDLINE search was conducted for all English language articles published during the period from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2000. The earlier date of 1990 was selected to include research that was representative of current health outcomes and QOL research methods. The following key words were used for the search: Breast Neoplasms and Quality of Life, Health Status, Economics, Health Services Research, Delivery of Health Care, or Quality of Health Care. To limit our search more narrowly to QOL, satisfaction with health care or treatment decisions, or economic outcomes, our search of Quality of Health Care and Delivery of Health Care was restricted to articles listing these key words as a major MeSH term. For the other key words, we selected articles using these terms as major or minor MeSH headings. Because this search did not identify any articles on outcomes associated with the dying experience of breast cancer patients (other than survival), we conducted a supplemental search on this topic using the following terms: Palliative Care or Death and Dying and Breast Neoplasms or Cancer.
Study Selection
The "Methods" and "Results" sections were reviewed for eligibility by two investigators using a standardized abstraction form (29). Study inclusion criteria consisted of being conducted in the United States and Western Europe, being published in a peer-reviewed journal, and presenting data on a health outcome. We excluded 859 articles, including phase I or II randomized trials (n = 7), studies with fewer than 100 subjects (n = 67) (since there would be insufficient power for the majority of measures), reviews (n = 180), comments/letters (n = 140), reports focusing on outcomes methodology (n = 68), studies conducted outside the United States or Western Europe (n = 45) (for comparability of health care systems, attitudes, and culture), studies that did not include breast cancer (n = 7), and studies that did not include a QOL outcome (n = 345). If outcomes data, or data subsets, had been published in more than one journal or time period, the largest dataset that contained the highest quality of information was selected for abstraction, although all of the measures were noted. The full listing of articles retrieved by the search is available from the authors.
Data Abstraction
For studies eligible for inclusion, the following data were abstracted: the phase of care, study design, population characteristics (e.g., age and race), country, number of subjects, outcomes included, tools or methods used to measure these outcomes, language of measurement, assessment of comorbid conditions, mode of administration of measures, and whether the authors reported any reliability testing for instrument performance in their study population or a statement about the power to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcomes between groups.
Data Analysis
Data were summarized by use of descriptive statistics, Student's t tests for differences in means, analysis of variance for differences in groups, and chi-square tests for differences in proportions and trends over time.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
There were 1089 original research articles identified by the search; 230 (21%) of these met the criteria for study inclusion (see Appendix Table 1) (30-264). These 230 articles reported on 155 distinct study samples. In the study period, there was a general increase in the number of articles that included breast cancer outcomes (Fig. 1; Table 1). This increase was largely due to increases in studies of QOL in the treatment and survivorship phases of care and economic studies of screening.
|
|
|
Among the 230 articles, the most common outcome reported was HRQOL (54.4%) followed by costs/economic outcomes (38.3%), whereas there were statistically significantly fewer satisfaction (13.9%) or preference (9%) outcomes reported (P<.001). The proportion of these different types of outcomes varied across phase of care, with studies of survivorship having the greatest proportion of outcomes focused on QOL (69.1%) and studies of screening (9.7%) and diagnostic care (0%) having the lowest proportion of QOL outcomes (P<.001). These latter two phases had the highest proportion of economic studies compared with the other phases of care (P<.001) (data not shown). These findings are likely to be due to the nature of screening and diagnosis where the QOL outcomes are short term and difficult to capture, whereas the economic impact of differing strategies on survival may be large.
We did not identify any studies about the quality of the dying experience for breast cancer patients per se. Within the metastatic treatment phase, there were 10 studies about palliative care that met our inclusion criteria (52-61); most were cross-sectional in design. The studies measured "will to live" (55), pain and symptom control (52-54,56,60,61), satisfaction (58), psychologic distress (52,57), and insight into prognosis (56). One study measured outcomes of the patients' caregivers (59).
Among the study sample, the most prevalent type of study was an economic study (n = 91); 65.9% of these were CEAs and 24.2% were descriptions of the costs of care (Table 2). Among the 139 noneconomic studies, slightly more than one half (55.4%) were controlled studies (RCTs, longitudinal cohorts, or case-control studies), whereas almost one half were uncontrolled cross-sectional analyses. In a comparison of study design by phase of care, there were twice as many RCTs among studies of local and metastatic disease phases of care than among studies of other phases, whereas an uncontrolled, cross-sectional design was employed twice as often in studies of the survivorship phase of care as in studies of other phases (P<.01).
|
The overwhelming majority of studies focused on white populations speaking
the dominant language; only 24
(62-85)
included more than 10% minority patients, and only three
(68,70,86)
reported more than 30% minority subjects. Five studies
(69,87-90)
noted use of translation of outcomes assessments into another language or
languages. Few studies [e.g.,
(76,91-93)]
concentrated on elderly women (women aged 
65 years).
There was a wide variety of instruments used in the study sample (Table 3) (94-195). The most commonly used tool was the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 (8), but no single instrument was used in more than 10% of the studies (Table 4). Among the 139 noneconomic studies, 54.0% (n = 75) used previously validated tools, 20.1% (n = 28) relied solely on nonvalidated measurements developed de novo for the study, 19.4% (n = 27) used a combination of validated and de novo instruments, and 2.1% (n = 2) did not state what measures were used (see Appendix Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There were 127 validated tools represented in the 75 studies that used one or more validated measures. The average number of instruments used per noneconomic study was 2.8 (range, 1-10). Studies about survivorship or local therapy had the highest average number of measures per study (3.7 and 2.9, respectively), and studies of screening, metastatic disease, and primary prevention used the lowest number of measures per study (1.7, 2, and 2.1, respectively). With the exception of the studies of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-prevention interventions, all QOL studies included more than one domain of QOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although most of the noneconomic studies did use previously validated and reliable measures, only one quarter (n = 37 of 139; 26.6%) reported the reliability and validity of the measure in their patient population; none reported data on reliability in population subgroups (e.g., by age or race). Among the 91 economic studies, only one (196) met current standards for a good quality analysis (e.g., societal perspective, quality-adjusted using population values, discounted, including nonmedical and medical costs, and all relevant downstream costs and effects), although nonstandard approaches may be appropriate in certain circumstances or for specified purposes [e.g., evaluation within a health maintenance organization (197)].
In terms of power, only 21 studies (63,69,90,96,198-214) presented information on their power to detect clinically meaningful differences in noneconomic outcomes. Comorbidity is an important covariate that has the potential to confound outcomes results. However, comorbidity was only specifically measured in four studies—one CEA (76), two cross-sectional studies of breast cancer survivors (65,205), and one cross-sectional study of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (92). However, results were not clearly controlled for this potential confounder in the cross-sectional studies. Similarly, a woman's baseline level of QOL is one of the strongest predictors of her long-term QOL. In an RCT, women with low and high levels of baseline QOL should be distributed randomly across study arms. In longitudinal follow-up studies, baseline QOL can be controlled for in analyses of outcomes. However, in the 46% of the noneconomic outcomes studies that employed a cross-sectional design, effects of variations in initial status were not accounted for in describing results.
Additional sources of bias in interpreting existing outcomes research
include low response rates. Low response rates (
50%) are threats to
internal validity
(70,73,91,215-218);
potential differential nonresponse, such as seen in many RCTs with QOL
components [e.g.,
(219)],
or differential losses to follow-up by treatment arm or health status [e.g.,
(220-222)]
or response rates by group [e.g.,
(70,201,223)]
are threats to internal validity of the results. In the metastatic disease
phase, there is the further challenge of poor response rates or losses to
follow-up because of severe illness or death; use of proxy respondents was not
addressed in any of these studies. Finally, none of the studies evaluated
whether floor or ceiling effects limited their ability to detect differences
in outcome or evaluated the amount of missing data and their impact on
results.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
At present, outcomes measurement is variable in its approach and application to the spectrum of breast cancer care. This enormous variability is evidenced by our finding that no one instrument was used in more than 10% of the studies. Although the past decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in the volume of research on breast health outcomes, large gaps exist in certain phases of care, types of outcomes, populations, and standards of measurement. For instance, only one study evaluated the quality of the dying experience for breast cancer patients, only 15.9% considered patient satisfaction, and only 4.1% included patient preferences. Only one half of the studies were controlled, and studies of survivors were the least likely to include a controlled design that accounted for baseline differences in health and functioning and other important covariates. At present, the overwhelming majority of research focuses on white, nonelderly populations.
In terms of the quality of the research, this overview highlights certain cross-cutting deficiencies—no studies commented on the potential for floor or ceiling effects to influence results, only one CEA would be considered to be adequate by current standards, and, among the noneconomic studies, only four measured comorbidity, 37 tested reliability in their own patient population, and 21 noted whether they had sufficient power to detect clinically meaningful differences in outcome. These types of limitations have been noted in other reviews as well (379). Thus, we recommend that a common set of standards be established for the design and conduct of outcomes studies (Table 5), including development of standard, practical tools to measure the burden of illness (including the number of illnesses, severity, and impact on function).
|
Given the complexity of breast cancer care and the heterogeneity in patient populations, no one instrument is sufficiently comprehensive, is sensitive to clinically meaningful changes in outcomes across all phases of care, and has acceptable respondent and provider burden. However, it should be possible to develop a "core" set of measures for measuring breast cancer outcomes that can be supplemented by sensitive phase-specific tools. Other issues, such as standardizing the optimal timing of measurement within and across phases, were beyond the scope of this review and are important to address in future research. Finally, it will be important to examine whether conclusions about outcomes are affected by choice of instrument.
Our review also highlights the paucity of patient preference data. We suggest that additional research be conducted to develop practical methods to measure patient preferences and that these measures be transportable into economic analyses that calculate cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. More work is also necessary to understand the quality of the dying experience from both the patient's and the caregiver's perspectives.
In summary, more research is needed to develop standard approaches that are 1) practical in a variety of health care settings, 2) reliable and valid, 3) applicable to broad age and race groups and culturally diverse populations, 4) useful to track changes in outcomes as individuals move through the phases of cancer care, and 5) informative for designing interventions to improve the quality of breast cancer services across the entire spectrum of care. Partnerships to facilitate translation of outcomes research from research centers to diverse community practices will be essential for reaching these goals.
|
NOTES |
|---|
Supported in part by Public Health Service (PHS) grants HS08395 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (J. Mandelblatt); by grant DAMD17-94-J-4212 from the Department of the Army, Breast Cancer Center Grant (J. Mandelblatt, W. Liang, and W. Lawrence); and by PHS grants R01CA72908 (J. Mandelblatt and K. R. Yabroff) and T332CA09314-19 (K. R. Yabroff) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, DHHS. Prepared for the NCI under contract 263-MQ-112555.
We acknowledge the critical reviews of earlier versions of the manuscript by Drs. Joseph Lipscomb and Molla Donaldson, NCI, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, and the manuscript preparation by Trina McClendon, Michelle Rogers, and Nicole S. Lee, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopNotesAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1 Selby PJ, Chapman JA, Etazadi-Amoli J, Dalley D, Boyd NF. The development of a method for assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Br J Cancer 1984;50: 13 -22.[ISI][Medline]
2 Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patient preferences: survival vs quality-of-life considerations. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 374 -7.[ISI][Medline]
3 Ganz PA. Quality of life measures in cancer chemotherapy: methodology and implications. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5: 376 -88.[ISI][Medline]
4 Strain JJ. The evolution of quality of life evaluations in cancer therapy. Oncology (Huntingt) 1990; 4: 22 -6.[Medline]
5 Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF, Burchenal JH. The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1948: 634 -56.
6 Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, Chesterman E, Levi J, Shepherd R, et al. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL index for use by physicians. J Chronic Dis 1981; 34: 585 -97.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
7 Heithoff KA. Effectiveness and outcomes in health care. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1990 .
8 Ware JE Jr, Johnston SA, Davies-Avery A, Brook RH. Conceptualization and measurement of health for adults in the health insurance study . 1979.
9 Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Assessment of quality of life and cancer treatment. In: Holland JC, editor. Brookline (MA): Elsevier Science Publishers BV (Biomedical Division); 1986 .
10 Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619 -26.[Abstract]
11 Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1999.
12 Andrews FM. Social indicators of well being: Americans' perception of life quality. New York (NY): Plenum Press; 1976 .
13 Campbell A. Quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1976 .
14 Campbell A. The sense of well-being in America: recent patterns and trends. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1981 .
15 Breslow L. A quantitative approach to the World Health Organization
definition of health: physical, mental and social well-being. Int J
Epidemiol 1972;1: 347
-55.
16 de Haes JC. Quality of life: conceptual and theoretical considerations. Psychosocial Oncol 1988; 11: 61 -70.
17 Cella DF. Cherin EA. Quality of life during and after cancer treatment. Compr Ther 1988; 14: 69 -75.[Medline]
18 Hollandsworth JG Jr. Evaluating the impact of medical treatment on the quality of life: a 5-year update. Soc Sci Med 1988; 26: 425 -34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19 Aaronson NK. Quality of life: what is it? How should it be measured? Oncology (Huntingt) 1988; 2: 69 -74.
20 Aaronson NK. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methodological issues. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10(4 Suppl): 195S -208S.[CrossRef][Medline]
21 de Haes JC, van Knippenberg FC. The quality of life of cancer patients: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 1985; 20: 809 -17.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
22 Nayfield SG, Hailey BJ, McCabe M. Quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 1991.
23 Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality
of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622
-9.
24 Patrick DL, Erickson P. What constitutes quality of life? Concepts and dimensions. Clin Nutr 1988; 7: 53 -63.
25 Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy. Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource. 1993 .
26 Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27(3 Suppl): S217 -S232.[ISI][Medline]
27 Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects. Oncology 2001; 4: 29 -38.[CrossRef]
28 Feeny D. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Measurement of Quality of Life as an Outcome in Clinical Trials. Control Clin Trials: Design, Methods, Analysis 1991; 12(Suppl): 1S -280S.
29 Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31 -49.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
30 Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, Audrain J. Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 1995;57: 385 -92.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
31 Ganz PA, Day R, Ware JE Jr, Redmond C, Fisher B. Base-line
quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel
Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 1372
-82.
32 Stefanek ME, Helzlsouer KJ, Wilcox PM, Houn F. Predictors of and satisfaction with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Prev Med 1995; 24: 412 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
33 Nease RF Jr, Ross JM. The decision to enter a randomized trial of tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer in healthy women: an analysis of the tradeoffs. Am J Med 1995; 99: 180 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
34 Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, Weeks JC. Decision
analysis—effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life
expectancy among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J
Med 1997;336: 1465
-71.
35 Borgen PI, Hill AD, Tran KN, Van Zee KJ, Massie MJ, Payne D, et al. Patient regrets after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5: 603 -6.[Abstract]
36 Grann VR, Whang W, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, Antman KH, Neugut AI.
Benefits and costs of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol
1999;17: 494
-500.
37 Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, Antman KH, Neugut AI. Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 979 -85.[Abstract]
38 Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Sundararajan V, Albert SM, Troxel AB, Neugut AI. The quality of life associated with prophylactic treatments for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Cancer J Sci Am 1999; 5: 283 -92.[Medline]
39 Noe LL, Becker RV III, Gradishar WJ, Gore M, Trotter JP. The cost effectiveness of tamoxifen in the prevention of breast cancer. Am J Manage Care 1999;5(6 Suppl): S389 -406.[ISI][Medline]
40 Brain K, Gray J, Norman P, France E, Anglim C, Barton G, et al.
Randomized trial of a specialist genetic assessment service for familial
breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1345
-51.
41 Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, Slezak JM, Arnold PG, Woods JE, et
al. Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following
bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA 2000; 284: 319
-24.
42 Grann VR, Jacobson JS, Whang W, Hershman D, Heitjan DF, Antman KH, et al. Prevention with tamoxifen or other hormones versus prophylactic surgery in BRCA1/2-positive women: a decision analysis. Cancer J Sci Am 2000; 6: 13 -20.[Medline]
43 Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F, Chabal F, Lasset C, Nogues C, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, et al. Disclosure to the family of breast/ovarian cancer genetic test results: patient's willingness and associated factors. Am J Med Genet 2000;94: 13 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
44 Smith TJ, Hillner BE. Tamoxifen should be cost-effective in
reducing breast cancer risk in high-risk women. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 284
-6.
45 Haiart DC, McKenzie L, Henderson J, Pollock W, McQueen DV, Roberts MM, et al. Mobile breast screening: factors affecting uptake, efforts to increase response and acceptability. Public Health 1990; 104: 239 -47.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
46 Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 1018 -22.[ISI][Medline]
47 Smith S, Botha JL, Goosey R, Daintith H. Audit of user satisfaction
with the Leicestershire Breast Screening Service; women attending for
assessment of abnormal mammograms. J Public Health Med 1991; 13: 166
-71.
48 Wilson SE, Andersen MR, Meischke H. Meeting the needs of rural breast cancer survivors: what still needs to be done? J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2000;9: 667 -77.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
49 Allen MW, Hendi P, Schwimmer J, Bassett L, Gambhir SS. Decision analysis for the cost effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography in minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44: 168 -85.[ISI][Medline]
50 Clavel M, Bonneterre J, d'Allens H, Paillarse JM. Oral ondansetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis in breast cancer patients. French Ondansetron Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 15 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
51 Boer R, de Koning HJ, van der Maas PJ. A longer breast carcinoma screening interval for women aged older than 65 years? Cancer 1999; 86: 1506 -10.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
52 Morize V, Nguyen DT, Lorente C, Desfosses G. Descriptive
epidemio-logical survey on a given day in all palliative care patients
hospitalized in a French university hospital. Palliat Med 1999; 13: 105
-17.
53 Kearsley JH, Schonfeld C, Sheehan M. Quality-of-life assessment during palliative radiotherapy. Australas Radiol 1998; 42: 354 -9.[Medline]
54 Ventafridda V, De Conno F, Ripamonti C, Gamba A, Tamburini M.
Quality of life assessment during a palliative care programme. Ann
Oncol 1990;1: 415
-20.
55 Chochinov HM, Tataryn D, Clinch JJ, Dudgeon D. Will to live in the terminally ill. Lancet 1999; 354: 816 -9.[ISI][Medline]
56 Ellershaw JE, Peat SJ, Boys LC. Assessing the effectiveness of a
hospital palliative care team. Palliat Med 1995; 9: 145
-52.
57 Miller RD, Walsh TD. Psychosocial aspects of palliative care in advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 1991; 6: 24 -9.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
58 Fakhoury WK. Satisfaction with palliative care: what should we be aware of? Int J Nurs Stud 1998; 35: 171 -6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
59 Kelly B, Edwards P, Synott R, Neil C, Baillie R, Battistetta D. Predictors of bereavement outcome for family carers of cancer patients. Psychoonocology 1999;8: 237 -49.
60 Peruselli C, Di Giulio P, Toscani F, Gallucci M, Brunelli C,
Costantini M, et al. Home palliative care for terminal cancer patients: a
survey on the final week of life. Palliat Med 1999; 13: 233
-41.
61 Ramirez AJ, Towlson KE, Leaning MS, Richards MA, Rubens RD. Do patients with advanced breast cancer benefit from chemotherapy? Br J Cancer 1998;78: 1488 -94.[ISI][Medline]
62 Bloom JR, Kessler L. Emotional support following cancer: a test of the stigma and social activity hypotheses. J Health Soc Behav 1994; 35: 118 -33.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
63 Couzi RJ, Helzlsouer KJ, Fetting JH. Prevalence of menopausal symptoms among women with a history of breast cancer and attitudes toward estrogen replacement therapy. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2737 -44.[Abstract]
64 Satariano WA, DeLorenze GN. The likelihood of returning to work after breast cancer. Public Health Rep 1996; 111: 236 -41.[ISI][Medline]
65 Marks LB, Hardenbergh PH, Winer ET, Prosnitz LR. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of postmastectomy radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44: 91 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
66 Lindley C, Vasa S, Sawyer WT, Winer EP. Quality of life and
preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage
breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1380
-7.
67 Ganz PA, Rowland JH, Meyerowitz BE, Desmond KA. Impact of different adjuvant therapy strategies on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Recent Results Cancer Res 1998; 152: 396 -411.[Medline]
68 Bloom JR, Stewart SL, Johnston M, Banks P. Intrusiveness of illness and quality of life in young women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 1998;7: 89 -100.[CrossRef][Medline]
69 Spencer SM, Lehman JM, Wynings C, Arena P, Carver CS, Antoni MH, et al. Concerns about breast cancer and relations to psychosocial well-being in a multiethnic sample of early-stage patients. Health Psychol 1999; 18: 159 -68.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
70 Ashing-Giwa K, Ganz PA, Petersen L. Quality of life of African-American and white long term breast carcinoma survivors. Cancer 1999;85: 418 -26.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
71 Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Cole BF. Evaluation of effectiveness: Q-TWiST. The International Breast Cancer Study Group. Cancer Treat Rev 1993;19 Suppl A: 73 -84.
72 Jones S, Winer E, Vogel C, Laufman L, Hutchins L, O'Rourke M, et al. Randomized comparison of vinorelbine and melphalan in anthracycline-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2567 -74.[Abstract]
73 Ganz PA, Schag AC, Lee JJ, Polinsky ML, Tan SJ. Breast conservation versus mastectomy. Is there a difference in psychological adjustment or quality of life in the year after surgery? Cancer 1992; 69: 1729 -38.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
74 Weitzner MA, Meyers CA, Stuebing KK, Saleeba AK. Relationship between quality of life and mood in long-term survivors of breast cancer treated with mastectomy. Support Care Cancer 1997; 5: 241 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
75 Wang X, Cosby LG, Harris MG, Liu T. Major concerns and needs of breast cancer patients. Cancer Nurs 1999; 22: 157 -63.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
76 Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief RD, Hollenberg JP, Tang J. Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions. A decision analysis model. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 722 -30.[ISI][Medline]
77 Nutting PA, Calonge BN, Iverson DC, Green LA. The danger of
applying uniform clinical policies across populations: the case of breast
cancer in American Indians. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1631
-6.
78 Mandelblatt J, Freeman H, Winczewski D, Cagney K, Williams S,
Trowers R, et al. The costs and effects of cervical and breast cancer
screening in a public hospital emergency room. The Cancer Control Center of
Harlem. Am J Public Health 1997; 87: 1182
-9.
79 Schweitzer ME, French MT, Ullmann SG, McCoy CB. Cost-effectiveness
of detecting breast cancer in lower socioeconomic status African American and
Hispanic women through mobile mammography services. Med Care Res
Rev 1998;55: 99
-115.
80 Gaston-Johansson F, Ohly KV, Fall-Dickson JM, Nanda JP, Kennedy MJ. Pain, psychological distress, health status, and coping in patients with breast cancer scheduled for autotransplantation. Oncol Nurs Forum 1999;26: 1337 -45.[Medline]
81 Ganz PA, Desmond KA, Belin TR, Meyerowitz BE, Rowland JH.
Predictors of sexual health in women after a breast cancer diagnosis. J
Clin Oncol 1999;17: 2371
-80.
82 Fairclough DL, Fetting JH, Cella D, Wonson W, Moinpour CM. Quality of life and quality adjusted survival for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapy. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Qual Life Res 1999;8: 723 -31.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
83 Pusic A, Thompson TA, Kerrigan CL, Sargeant R, Slezak S, Chang BW, et al. Surgical options for the early-stage breast cancer: factors associated with patient choice and postoperative quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;104: 1325 -33.[ISI][Medline]
84 Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, Burstin HR, Brennan TA. Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 321 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
85 Ganz PA, Coscarelli A, Fred C, Kahn B, Polinsky ML, Petersen L. Breast cancer survivors: psychosocial concerns and quality of life. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 38: 183 -99.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
86 Shimozuma K, Ganz PA, Petersen L, Hirji K. Quality of life in the first year after breast cancer surgery: rehabilitation needs and patterns of recovery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1999; 56: 45 -57.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
87 Hurny C, Bernhard J, Gelber RD, Coates A, Castiglione M, Isley M, et al. Quality of life measures for patients receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: an international trial. The International Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28: 118 -24.[CrossRef][Medline]
88 Bernhard J, Hurny C, Coates AS, Peterson HF, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, et al. Factors affecting baseline quality of life in two international adjuvant breast cancer trials. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Br J Cancer 1998; 78: 686 -93.[ISI][Medline]
89 Hurny C, Bernhard J, Coates AS, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Peterson HF, Gelber RD, et al. Impact of adjuvant therapy on quality of life in women with node-positive operable breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group Lancet 1996;347: 1279 -84.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline][published erratum appears in Lancet 1997; 350: 298 ].[ISI][Medline]
90 Liberati A. The GIVIO trial on the impact of follow-up care on
survival and quality of life in breast cancer patients. Interdisciplinary
Group for Cancer Care Evaluation. Ann Oncol 1995; 6 Suppl 2: 41
-4.
91 Secker-Walker RH, Vacek PM, Hooper GJ, Plante DA, Detsky AS.
Screening for breast cancer: time, travel, and out-of-pocket expenses. J Natl Cancer Inst
1999;91: 702
-8.
92 Kurtz ME, Kurtz JC, Stommel M, Given CW, Given B. The influence of symptoms, age, comorbidity and cancer site on physical functioning and mental health of geriatric women patients. Women Health 1999; 29: 1 -12.[ISI][Medline]
93 Desch CE, Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Retchin SM. Should the elderly receive chemotherapy for node-negative breast cancer? A cost-effectiveness analysis examining total and active life-expectancy outcomes. J Clin Oncol 1993;11: 777 -82.[Abstract]
94 DiMatteo MR, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, Ordway L, Kravitz RL, McGlynn EA, et al. Physicians' characteristics influence patients' adherence to medical treatment: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Health Psychol 1993;12: 93 -102.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
95 Social indicators of well-being. New York (NY): Plenum Press; 1976.
96 Ganz PA, Day R, Ware JE Jr, Redmond C, Fisher B. Base-line
quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel
Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 1372
-82.
97 Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M, De Pauw S, Goodyear MD, Hryniuk WM, et al. Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 542 -4.[ISI][Medline]
98 Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychology 1991;10: 259 -67.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
99 Beck AT, Steer RA. Beck depression inventory manual. San Antonio (TX): The Psychological Corp./Harcourt Brace; 1993 .
100 Brown GW, Harris TO. A study of psychosocial disorder in women. 1978.
101 Berkman LF. The assessment of social networks and social support in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 1983; 31: 743 -9.[ISI][Medline]
102 Franzoi SL, Shields SA. The body esteem scale: multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population. J Pers Assess 1984;48: 173 -8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
103 Zerssen D. Klinische Selbstbeurteilungsskalen (KSb-S) aus dem Munchener Psychiatrischen Weinheim (Germany): Informationssystem (PSYCHIS Munchen); 1976.
104 Delaplaine RW, Bottomy JR, Blatt M, Wiesbader H, Kupperman HS. Effective control of the surgical menopause by estradiol pellet implantation at the time of surgery. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1952; 94: 323 -33.[ISI][Medline]
105 Cleeland CS, Syrjala KL. How to assess cancer pain. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 1992.
106 Orden SR, Bradburn NM. Working wives and marriage happiness. Am J Surg 1969;74: 392 -407.
107 Hamilton MK. The health and activity limitation survey. Health Rep 1989;1: 175 -87.[Medline]
108 Katz S. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychological function. JAMA 1963;185: 914 -9.[ISI][Medline]
109 Schain W. Breast cancer problems checklist. 1979 .
110 Caplan RD, Abbey A, Abramis DJ, Andrews FM, Conway TL. Tranquilizer use and well being: a longitudinal study of social psychological effects . Ann Arbor (MI): Institute for Social Research; 1984 .
111 Ganz PA, Schag CA, Lee JJ, Sim MS. The CARES: a generic measure of health-related quality of life for patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1992;1: 19 -29.[CrossRef][Medline]
112 Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med 1983; 13: 595 -605.[ISI][Medline]
113 Roberts CS, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Baile WF, Gibertini M. Influence of physician communication on newly diagnosed breast patients' psychologic adjustment and decision-making. Cancer 1994; 74(1 suppl): 336 -41.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
114 Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measur 2001; 1: 385 -401.
115 Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37: 147 -53.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
116 Ota J. Le test de copie d'une figure complexe: contribution a l'etude de l'aperception et de la memoire. Arch Psychol 1944; 30: 205 -353.
117 Test d2 Aufmerksamkeitsbelastungstest; 1978 .
118 de Groot HA. The de Groot Symptom-Transition Scale. Tuscon (AZ): The University of Arizona College of Nursing and Sigma Theta International; 1989.
119 Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York (NY): Psychological Corporation; 1955.
120 Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, De Gruy FV, Kaplan BH. The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care 1988; 26: 709 -23.[ISI][Medline]
121 Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam 1976; 38: 15 -28.[CrossRef][ISI]
122 Kristal AR, Shattuck AL, Henry HJ. Patterns of dietary behavior associated with selecting diets low in fat: reliability and validity of a behavior approach to dietary assessment. J Am Diet Assoc 1990; 90: 214 -20.[ISI][Medline]
123 Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RV, Myers MH. Manual for staging of cancer. Philadelphia (PA): 1988.
124 Sprangers MA, Groenvald M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, te Velde A,
Muller M, 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 1996; 14: 2756
-68.
125 Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, 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 1993; 85: 55 -65.
126 Cella D. F.A.C.I.T. (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy). Manual, Version 4 ed. Chicago (IL): Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern University; 1997 .
127 Alpherts WC, Aldenkamp AP. The Iron Fepsy. Heemsted (The Netherlands): Instituut voor epilepsiebestrijding Heemstede; 1994 .
128 Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, Levitt M. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: the Functional Living Index—Cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472 -83.[Abstract]
129 Ferrans CE, Powers MJ. Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1985; 8: 15 -24.[Medline]
130 Gaston-Johansson F. Measurement of pain: the psychometric properties of the Pain-O-Meter, a simple inexpensive pain assessment tool that could change health care practices. J Pain Symptom Manage 1996; 12: 172 -81.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
131 Goldberg D. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London (U.K.): Oxford University Press; 1972 .
132 Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361 -70.[ISI][Medline]
133 House JS. Work stress and social support. 1981 .
134 Walker LG, Cordiner C, Gilbert FJ. How distressing is attendance for routine breast screening. Psychooncology 1994; 3: 299 -304.
135 Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL). A measure of primary symptom dimensions. Mod Probl Psychopharmacol 1974; 7: 79 -110.
136 Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179 -86.[ISI][Medline]
137 Braden CJ. Learned self-help response to chronic illness experience: a test of three alternative learning theories. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 1990;4: 23 -41.[Medline]
138 Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure
of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 1979; 41: 209
-18.
139 Devins GM. Illness intrusiveness and the psychosocial impact of lifestyle disruptions in chronic life-threatening disease. Adv Ren Replace Ther 1994;1: 251 -63.[Medline]
140 Campbell A, Converse P, Rogers W. The quality of American life. New York (NY); 1976.
141 Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. New York (NY): Columbia University Press; 1949.
142 The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press; 1965.
143 Lasry JC, Margolese RG, Poisson R, Shibata H, Fleischer D, Lafleur D, et al. Depression and body image following mastectomy and lumpectomy. J Chronic Dis 1987;40: 529 -34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
144 Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991;114: 657 -61.[ISI][Medline]
145 Sarason IG, Johnson JH, Siegal JM. Assessing the impact of life changes: development of the Life Experiences Survey. J Consult Clin Psychol 1978;46: 932 -46.[CrossRef][ISI]