Quality of Life after Mastectomy with or without Breast Reconstruction and Breast-Conserving Surgery in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Tertiary Hospital in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Breast cancer is the leading malignancy worldwide, and in Ghana, it has a poor overall survival rate. However, approximately 50% of cases are cases of early-stage disease, and with advances in breast cancer treatment and improvements in survival, quality of life (QOL) is becoming as important as the treatment of the disease. (2) Methodology: This was a cross-sectional study of survivors who had breast-conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy only (M) and mastectomy with breast reconstruction (BRS) from 2016 to 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Ghana, comparatively assessing their QOL using EORTC QLQ C-30 and EORTC QLQ BR-23. (3) Results: The study participants had an overall global health status (GHS) median score of 83.3 [IQR: 66.7–91.7] with no significant differences between the surgery types. The BRS group had statistically significant lower median scores for the functional scale (82.8 and 51.0) and the highest scores for the symptomatic scale (15.7 and 16.5). Body image was significantly lowest for the BRS group (83.3) [68.8–91.7] and highest (100) [91.7–100] for the BCS group (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: There is a need to develop support systems tailored at improving the QOL of breast cancer survivors taking into consideration the type of surgery performed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".