Cosmetic outcomes following breast conservation therapy: in search of a reliable scale
- 96 Downloads
Multiple scales to evaluate breast cosmesis following breast conserving treatment (BCT) have been developed, however reliability is a problem. Panel scores, where scores from two or more individuals are combined, were assessed to examine their effect on reliability for two different cosmetic scales.
Women, two or more years following BCT, were recruited from a single breast centre. Photographs of each participant were evaluated independently by six health care professionals on two separate occasions. A simple four-point scale and more involved multi-item scale were used to assess cosmetic outcome. Reliability was assessed with the weighted kappa statistic for increasing panel sizes.
Ninety-nine women were evaluated. Intra rater reliability increased from 0.73 to 0.83 for the four-point scale, for increasing panel sizes, however 95% confidence intervals generally overlapped. A smaller and more unpredictable effect was seen on the multi-item subscale, range 0.69 to 0.73. Inter rater reliability increased from 0.68 to 0.93 for the four-point scale, and 0.75 to 0.96 for the multi-item scale, for increasing panel sizes; 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. A panel of three for either scale provided almost perfect kappa values with only small improvements with larger panel sizes.
Care should be used in interpreting results where cosmetic outcomes have been obtained from a single evaluator. Panel scores can be used to significantly improve inter-rater, but not intra rater reliability, for the scales studied. Comparable reliability, in combination with simplicity of use and interpretation, would favour the four-point scale for breast cosmetic evaluation over the multi-item scale.
KeywordsBreast cancer Breast conservation Cosmetic scale Cosmetic outcomes Reliability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 13.Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, Broderick M, Regan J, Ross G et’al (1992) Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. Comparison of patients’ ratings, observers’ ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother Oncol 25:153–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC et’al (1999) Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “boost versus no boost” trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:667–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174Google Scholar
- 20.Lindsey I, Serpell JW, Johnson WR, Rodger A (1997) Cosmesis following complete local excision of breast cancer. Aust NZ J␣Surg 67:428–432Google Scholar
- 23.Yeo W, Kwan WH, Teo PM, Leung WT, King W, Johnson PJ (1997) Cosmetic outcome of breast-conserving therapy in Chinese patients with early breast cancer. Aust NZ J Surg 67:771–774Google Scholar
- 24.Curran D, van Dongen JP, Aaronson NK, Kiebert G, Fentiman IS, Mignolet F et’al (1998) Quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients treated with radical mastectomy or breast-conserving procedures:results of EORTC Trial 10801. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Breast Cancer Co-operative Group (BCCG). Eur J Cancer 34:307–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar