Literature DB >> 18186862

Positive, negative, and disparate--women's differing long-term psychosocial experiences of bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Andrea Altschuler1, Larissa Nekhlyudov, Sharon J Rolnick, Sarah M Greene, Joann G Elmore, Carmen N West, Lisa J Herrinton, Emily L Harris, Suzanne W Fletcher, Karen M Emmons, Ann M Geiger.   

Abstract

Because of recent studies showing strong prevention benefit and acceptable psychosocial outcomes, more women may be considering prophylactic mastectomy. A growing literature shows some positive psychosocial outcomes for women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, but less is known about women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Several surveys have shown that a large majority of women with prophylactic mastectomy report satisfaction with their decisions to have the procedure when asked in a quantitative, closed-ended format. We sought to explore the nuances of women's satisfaction with the procedure using a qualitative, open-ended format. We included open-ended questions as part of a mailed survey on psychosocial outcomes of prophylactic mastectomy. The research team coded and analyzed these responses using qualitative methods. We used simple descriptive statistics to compare the demographics of the entire survey sample to those women who answered the open-ended questions; the responses to the open- and closed-ended satisfaction questions, and the responses of women with bilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Seventy-one percent of women with prophylactic mastectomy responded to the survey and 48% provided open-ended responses about psychosocial outcomes. Women's open-ended responses regarding psychosocial outcomes could be coded into one of three general categories--positive, negative, and disparate. In the subgroup of women with both open- and closed-ended responses, over 70% of women providing negative and disparate comments to the open-ended question simultaneously indicated satisfaction on a closed-ended question. Negative and disparate open-ended responses were twice as common among women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (52%) than women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (26%). These findings suggest that even among women who report general satisfaction with their decision to have prophylactic mastectomy via closed-ended survey questions, lingering negative psychosocial outcomes can remain, particularly among women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. This dichotomy could be an important factor to discuss in counseling women considering the procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18186862     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00521.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  18 in total

Review 1.  United States trends in the surgical treatment of primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Todd M Tuttle; Natasha M Rueth; Andrea Abbott; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among surgical oncology providers and women with sporadic breast cancer: a content analysis.

Authors:  Thomas A D'Agostino; Abenaa M Brewster; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Patricia A Parker
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 3.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer: what to discuss with patients.

Authors:  Giacomo Montagna; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.512

4.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: long-term consistency of satisfaction and adverse effects and the significance of informed decision-making, quality of life, and personality traits.

Authors:  Marlene H Frost; Tanya L Hoskin; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Joanne L Johnson; Judy C Boughey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Perspectives of Women Considering Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and their Peers towards a Telephone-Based Peer Support Intervention.

Authors:  D St-Pierre; K Bouchard; L Gauthier; J Chiquette; Michel Dorval
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  The increasing use of prophylactic mastectomy in the prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Todd M Tuttle; Andrea Abbott; Amanda Arrington; Natasha Rueth
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Looking different, feeling different: women's reactions to risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgery.

Authors:  Nina Hallowell; Brandi Baylock; Louise Heiniger; Phyllis N Butow; Deepa Patel; Bettina Meiser; Christobel Saunders; Melanie A Price
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Quality of Life after Bilateral and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Implant Reconstruction.

Authors:  Rüdiger Klapdor; Christina Weiß; Elna Kuehnle; Fabian Kohls; Julia von Ehr; Anja Philippeit; Ursula Hille-Betz
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Is it High Enough to Justify Bilateral Mastectomy?

Authors:  Megan E Miller; Shirin Muhsen; Cristina Olcese; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  Persistent Post-Mastectomy Pain: Risk Factors and Current Approaches to Treatment.

Authors:  Raymond C Tait; Kim Zoberi; McKenzie Ferguson; Kimberly Levenhagen; Rebecca A Luebbert; Kevin Rowland; Gretchen B Salsich; Christopher Herndon
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 5.820

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.