Congruence and trajectories of device-measured and self-reported physical activity during therapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study examines congruence between self-reported and device-measured physical activity data in women with early breast cancer and compares trajectories under different treatments. METHODS: Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were recruited before primary therapy. In four weeks distributed over six months after treatment start, patients reported time spent on work, transport, chores and sports via diary and wore Garmin® vivofit 3 accelerometers to assess steps taken. Associations between these measures and agreement regarding guideline adherence were tested with Spearman's Correlation Coefficient and Weighted Kappa statistic. Effects of time and treatment were evaluated using mixed analyses of variance. RESULTS: Ninety-nine participants (median age = 50) were treated with adjuvant (N = 23), neoadjuvant (N = 21) or without chemotherapy (N = 55). Coherence between self-report and device data was strong (r = 0.566). Agreement about reaching recommendations was only "fair" (kappa coefficient = 0.321 and 0.249, resp.). Neither treatment or week nor their interaction had effects on step counts (all p > 0.05). Self-reported activity time was lower for patients with chemotherapy than for those without (adjuvant: ∆ = 69min, p = 0.006, neoadjuvant: ∆ = 45min, p = 0.038) and lower in week 18 than in week 3 (∆ = 43min, p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Results show that consumer-grade activity monitors and self-reports correlate but show different perspectives on physical activity in breast cancer patients. In general, patients perceive some decline regardless of primary treatment regimen. Those affected should be offered assistance to gain the benefits of activity. Accelerometers may help professionals to identify these individuals and patients to verify appraisal of their activity levels.

Quality of life influenced by primary surgical treatment for stage I-III breast cancer-long-term follow-up of a matched-pair analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy has been demonstrated to be just as safe and a less disruptive experience compared with mastectomy for surgically manageable breast cancer. There is, however, no agreement in the literature about the impact of these procedures on several important aspects of quality of life (QOL). The purpose of the present study is to compare the long-term impact of these two surgical approaches on QOL in patients with identical tumor stages and to suggest possible shortcomings of the standard QOL questionnaires. METHOD: Between August 1999 and May 2000, QOL questionnaires were answered by 152 pair-matched patients at the I. Frauenklinik, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, as part of routine follow-up examinations. The pairs of patients, each consisting of one patient after mastectomy and one after breast conservation, were selected according to the highest degree of equivalence in tumor stage. All patients had been initially treated for stage I-III breast cancer without evidence of distant metastases. The QOL was evaluated by using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire version 2.0 of the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. We formulated seven additional questions about the patients' satisfaction with the primary surgical treatment modality as viewed from their current perspective. The QOL questionnaires were answered after a median interval of 46 months following primary treatment. RESULTS: Tumor stage, prognostic factors, and adjuvant systemic treatment were well balanced between the two groups. No differences between the two groups were observed in terms of all QOL items measured by the QLQ-C30. Our additional questions, however, revealed that patients in the mastectomy group were less satisfied with the cosmetic result of their primary operation (P < .0001), were more likely to feel basic changes in their appearance (P < .0001), and were more likely to be emotionally stressed by these facts (P < .0001). From their perspective at the time of completing the questionnaires, 11 patients in the mastectomy group (15%) would decide differently about the surgical treatment modality, compared with only 3 patients (4%) in the breast conservation group (P = .025). CONCLUSION: While the primary surgical treatment modality seems to have no long-term impact on general QOL, certain body-image-related problems may be caused by mastectomy. Standard measuring instruments for QOL may fail to detect differences in satisfaction and adaptation with the primary surgical treatment modality.