Skip to main content
Log in

Greek translation and cultural adaptation of new scales and checklists for the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The impact of post-mastectomy breast reconstructive surgery on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of breast cancer patients has gained research and clinical interest in the last decades. Using valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess HRQoL from the patients’ perspective provides critical information to better-inform care delivery. The BREAST-Q is a PROM used worldwide to evaluate outcomes of breast surgery. This study describes the translation and cultural adaptation process to develop the Greek version of the latissimus dorsi scales and radiation checklist for BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module.

Methods

Our team obtained permission to use and translate the Satisfaction with Back and Physical Well-Being: Back and Shoulder scales, and Adverse Effects of Radiation checklist of the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. The translation and cultural adaptation were conducted according to the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research guidelines. Two forward translations and one back translation were prepared, followed by cognitive debriefing interviews with patients.

Results

Forward translation revealed no items that were difficult to translate. Back translation resulted in the re-translation of one item that was found to have a different meaning than the original English version. Nine patients participated in the cognitive debriefing interviews and confirmed that the Greek version of the new scales and checklist were easy to understand.

Conclusions

Translation and cultural adaptation of the latissimus dorsi scales and radiation checklist resulted in the equivalent Greek version, which plastic surgeons can use in Greece to measure satisfaction and quality of life outcomes from the patient’s perspective.

Level of evidence: Not ratable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Watkins EJ (2019) Overview of breast cancer. JAAPA 32:13–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jaa.0000580524.95733.3d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. The Global Cancer Observatory. Populations fact sheets: Greece 2020. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/300-greece-fact-sheets.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2021

  3. Reavey P, McCarthy CM (2008) Update on breast reconstruction in breast cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0b013e3282f2329b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cano SJ, Browne JP, Lamping DL (2004) Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg 57:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2003.08.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pusic AL, McCarthy C, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Kerrigan CL (2008) Clinical research in breast surgery: reduction and postmastectomy reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 35:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2007.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S, Klassen A, McCarthy C, Collins ED, Cordeiro PG (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:823–837. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reaby LL, Hort LK, Vandervord J (1994) Body image, self-concept, and self-esteem in women who had a mastectomy and either wore an external breast prosthesis or had breast reconstruction and women who had not experienced mastectomy. Health Care Women Int 15:361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339409516129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellino S, Fenocchio M, Zizza M, Rocca G, Bogetti P, Bogetto F (2011) Quality of life of patients who undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy: effects of personality characteristics. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f956c0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nissen MJ, Swenson KK, Ritz LJ, Farrell JB, Sladek ML, Lally RM (2001) Quality of life after breast carcinoma surgery: a comparison of three surgical procedures. Cancer 91:1238–1246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Elder EE, Brandberg Y, Bjorklund T, Rylander R, Lagergren J, Jurell G, Wickman M, Sandelin K (2005) Quality of life and patient satisfaction in breast cancer patients after immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective study. Breast 14:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2004.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL (2012) The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:293–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31823aec6b

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P (2005) Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 8:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard NST, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J, Pusic AL (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Serletti JM, Fosnot J, Nelson JA, Disa JJ, Bucky LP (2011) Breast reconstruction after breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:124e–135e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318213a2e6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sisco M, Johnson DB, Wang C, Rasinski K, Rundell VL, Yao KA (2015) The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol 111:663–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levine SM, Patel N, Disa JJ (2012) Outcomes of delayed abdominal-based autologous reconstruction versus latissimus dorsi flap plus implant reconstruction in previously irradiated patients. Ann Plast Surg 69:380–382. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31824b3d6b

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindegren A, Halle M, Docherty Skogh AC, Edsander-Nord Å (2012) Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the irradiated breast: a comparative study of DIEP and latissimus dorsi flap outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182547aaf

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Demiri EC, Dionyssiou DD, Tsimponis A, Goula CO, Pavlidis LC, Spyropoulou GA (2018) Outcomes of fat-augmented latissimus dorsi (FALD) flap versus implant-based latissimus dorsi flap for delayed post-radiation breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42:692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1081-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Demiri EC, Tsimponis A, Pagkalos A, Georgiadou E, Goula CO, Spyropoulou GA, Dionyssiou D (2021) Fat-augmented latissimus dorsi versus deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: comparative study in delayed autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 37:208–215. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Efterpi Demiri.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Papageorgiou Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece.

Consent to participate

All patients provided informed written consent before participating in the cognitive debriefing interviews.

Conflict of interest

Efterpi Demiri, Anastasios Pagkalos, Elena Tsangaris, Avra Drougou, Leonidas Pavlidis, Dimitrios Dionyssiou, and Georgios Pagkalos declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demiri, E., Pagkalos, A., Tsangaris, E. et al. Greek translation and cultural adaptation of new scales and checklists for the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Eur J Plast Surg 45, 95–99 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01846-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01846-w

Keywords

Navigation