- Review
Reconstructive surgical oncology has traditionally been assessed through clinician-reported endpoints such as flap survival and complications, which describe technical success but poorly capture the symptoms, function, appearance, and well-being that matter to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify that perspective, but administering a validated questionnaire is not equivalent to performing a valid assessment. This critical review compares PROM measurement in four deliberately selected settings against five explicit criteria: content validity, measurement properties, interpretability, quality of application, and evidence on intervention effects. On this basis, we propose a gradient of measurement maturity. Breast reconstruction has the most developed instrument and reference data, although its threshold of important difference is distribution-based and its comparative evidence observational. In cancer-related lymphedema, patient-reported improvement after lymphatic surgery has been reported without corresponding volume reduction, but the randomized evidence is open-label and exposed to expectancy and to changes in compression; sham-controlled results are awaited. Head and neck and extremity reconstruction have validated instruments but lack agreed constructs and appropriate thresholds. We discuss cross-cutting problems, including feasibility and equity, and propose setting-specific minimum measurement sets. The gradient is a hypothesis generated by a non-systematic review, to be tested in systematic appraisals and consensus studies.
15 November 2026




