nach oben

Erschienen in:

18.08.2020 | Breast Oncology

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery

verfasst von: Nikhil Panda, MD, MPH, Ian Solsky, MD, MPH, Becky Hawrusik, MS, Gang Liu, MS, Harrison Reeder, BA, Stuart Lipsitz, ScD, Eesha V Desai, BS, Kurt W. Lowery, BS, Kate Miller, PhD, MPH, Michele A. Gadd, MD, Carrie C. Lubitz, MD, MPH, Barbara L. Smith, MD, PhD, Michelle Specht, MD, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, DSc, Alex B. Haynes, MD, MPH

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL).

Methods

In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients.

Results

Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8–152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (− 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (− 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020989.CrossRefPubMed

Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, Düring M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2008;47(4):672–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860801971439.CrossRef

Litière S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS, et al. Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(4):412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70042-6.CrossRefPubMed

Michael YL, Kawachi I, Berkman LF, Holmes MD, Colditz GA. The persistent impact of breast carcinoma on functional health status. Cancer. 2000;89(11):2176–2186. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001201)89:11 %3c 2176::aid-cncr5 %3e 3.0.co;2-6.CrossRefPubMed

Lee ES, Lee MK, Kim SH, et al. Health-related quality of life in survivors with breast cancer 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2011;253(1):101–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181f662ce.CrossRefPubMed

Abrahams HJG, Gielissen MFM, Schmits IC, Verhagen CAHHVM, Rovers MM, Knoop H. Risk factors, prevalence, and course of severe fatigue after breast cancer treatment: a meta-analysis involving 12 327 breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(6):965–974. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw099.CrossRefPubMed

Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: a bibliographic review of the literature from 1974 to 2007. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008;27(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-27-32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lee CN, Chang Y, Adimorah N, et al. Decision making about surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.09.017.CrossRefPubMed

Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, et al. Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician–patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;18(3):479–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl456.CrossRef

10.

Onnela J-P, Rauch SL. Harnessing smartphone-based digital phenotyping to enhance behavioral and mental health. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(7):1691–1696. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2016.7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Panda N, Solsky I, Haynes AB. Redefining shared decision-making in the digital era. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Torous J, Kiang MV, Lorme J, Onnela J-P. New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3(2):e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5165.CrossRef

13.

Panda N, Solsky I, Huang EJ, et al. Passively collected smartphone sensor data to detect postoperative events after cancer surgery: a prospective, multicenter, proof-of-principle study. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):S159–S160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.352.CrossRef

14.

Panda N, Solsky I, Huang EJ, et al. Using smartphones to capture novel recovery metrics after cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4702.CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Armstrong KA, Coyte PC, Brown M, Beber B, Semple JL. Effect of home monitoring via mobile app on the number of in-person visits following ambulatory surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(7):622. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hyder JA, Hirschberg RE, Nguyen LL. Home discharge as a performance metric for surgery. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(2):96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1725.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Myles PS, Shulman MA, Heritier S, et al. Validation of days at home as an outcome measure after surgery: a prospective cohort study in Australia. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e015828. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015828.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Yurkiewicz IR, Simon P, Liedtke M, Dahl G, Dunn T. Effect of fitbit and iPad wearable technology in health-related quality of life in adolescent and young adult cancer patients. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018;7(5):579–583. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2018.0022.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Petersen J, Austin D, Kaye JA, Pavel M, Hayes TL. Unobtrusive in-home detection of time spent out-of-home with applications to loneliness and physical activity. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf. 2014;18(5):1590. https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2013.2294276.CrossRef

20.

Panda N, Haynes AB. Prioritizing the patient perspective in oncologic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07753-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.CrossRef

22.

Barnett I, Onnela J-P. Inferring mobility measures from GPS traces with missing data. Biostatistics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxy059.CrossRef

23.

Panda N, Rattner DW, Morse CR. Third-time (“redo-redo”) anti-reflux surgery: patient-reported outcomes after a thoracoabdominal approach. Surg Endosc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07059-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

RAND. 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

25.

Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Karvouni A, Kouri I, Ioannidis JPA. Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2009;338:a3006. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):395–404. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012552211996.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2014;97(19):1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.o.00030.CrossRef

28.

Mehta CR, Patel NR, Tsiatis AA. Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence with ordered categorical data. Biometrics. 1984;40(3):819. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530927.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19(6):716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1974.1100705.CrossRef

30.

Multiple comparisons—Handbook of Biological Statistics. http://www.biostathandbook.com/multiplecomparisons.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2020.

31.

Petersen J, Austin D, Mattek N, Kaye J. Time Out-of-Home and Cognitive, physical, and emotional wellbeing of older adults: a longitudinal mixed effects model. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Wettstein M, Wahl H-W, Shoval N, et al. Out-of-home behavior and cognitive impairment in older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(1):3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812459373.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Bade BC, Brooks MC, Nietert SB, et al. Assessing the correlation between physical activity and quality of life in advanced lung cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2018;17(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735416684016.CrossRefPubMed

34.

de Mik SML, Stubenrouch FE, Balm R, Ubbink DT. Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;105(13):1721–1730. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(3):974–986. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.3.974.CrossRefPubMed

36.

FACT-B—Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast Cancer. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/functional-assessment-of-cancer-therapy-breast-cancer. Accessed 15 Oct 2019.

37.

Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the breast-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ, Ganz PA. Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer—taking stock. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(4):263–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.4.263.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Antonescu I, Scott S, Tran TT, Mayo NE, Feldman LS. Measuring postoperative recovery: what are clinically meaningful differences? Surgery. 2014;156(2):319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.005.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Smith A. U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015| Pew Research Center.

Titel: Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery
verfasst von: Nikhil Panda, MD, MPH
Ian Solsky, MD, MPH
Becky Hawrusik, MS
Gang Liu, MS
Harrison Reeder, BA
Stuart Lipsitz, ScD
Eesha V Desai, BS
Kurt W. Lowery, BS
Kate Miller, PhD, MPH
Michele A. Gadd, MD
Carrie C. Lubitz, MD, MPH
Barbara L. Smith, MD, PhD
Michelle Specht, MD
Jukka-Pekka Onnela, DSc
Alex B. Haynes, MD, MPH
Publikationsdatum: 18.08.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09004-5

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.

Wie sieht der OP der Zukunft aus?

04.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Der OP in der Zukunft wird mit weniger Personal auskommen – nicht, weil die Technik das medizinische Fachpersonal verdrängt, sondern weil der Personalmangel es nötig macht.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Recycling im OP – möglich, aber teuer

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Auch wenn sich Krankenhäuser nachhaltig und grün geben – sie tragen aktuell erheblich zu den CO₂-Emissionen bei und produzieren jede Menge Müll. Ein Pilotprojekt aus Bonn zeigt, dass viele Op.-Abfälle wiederverwertet werden können.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Prognostic Significance of Complete Pathologic Response Obtained with Chemotherapy Versus Chemoradiotherapy in Gastric Cancer

Completely Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Hybrid Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junctional Cancer: Clinical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes

The Landmark Series: Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Medical Maximizing–Minimizing Preferences in Relation to Low-Value Services for Older Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Conditional Survival and Time of Biochemical Recurrence of Localized Prostate Cancer in Japanese Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomies

Predictors for Survival in an International Cohort of Patients Undergoing Distal Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Update Chirurgie