PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the long-term consistency of satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and adverse psychosocial effects as well as to explore the effect of informed decision-making, personality traits, and quality of life (QOL) on satisfaction. METHODS: A previously established cohort of women with unilateral breast cancer who had undergone CPM between 1960 and 1993 were surveyed using study-specific and standardized questionnaires at two follow-up time points. The first survey was a mean of 10.7 years and the second survey a mean of 20.2 years after CPM. RESULTS: 487 of the 583 women who responded to the first study were alive and resurveyed. Data from both surveys were available for 269 women. With longer follow-up, there was a small increase in the percentage of women satisfied (90%) and those who would choose CPM again (92%) (4% and 2% increase from first survey, respectively). Most adversely affected were body appearance (31%), feelings of femininity (24%), and sexual relationships (23%). Ninety-three percent of women felt they had made an informed decision. Perception of making an informed choice and current QOL were moderately associated with satisfaction with CPM (r = 0.37 and 0.37, respectively) while associations with trait anxiety and optimism were weak (r = 0.27 and 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term satisfaction and adverse effects remained remarkably stable. It is important that women fully understand the benefits and adverse effects associated with CPM.
PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the long-term consistency of satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and adverse psychosocial effects as well as to explore the effect of informed decision-making, personality traits, and quality of life (QOL) on satisfaction. METHODS: A previously established cohort of women with unilateral breast cancer who had undergone CPM between 1960 and 1993 were surveyed using study-specific and standardized questionnaires at two follow-up time points. The first survey was a mean of 10.7 years and the second survey a mean of 20.2 years after CPM. RESULTS: 487 of the 583 women who responded to the first study were alive and resurveyed. Data from both surveys were available for 269 women. With longer follow-up, there was a small increase in the percentage of women satisfied (90%) and those who would choose CPM again (92%) (4% and 2% increase from first survey, respectively). Most adversely affected were body appearance (31%), feelings of femininity (24%), and sexual relationships (23%). Ninety-three percent of women felt they had made an informed decision. Perception of making an informed choice and current QOL were moderately associated with satisfaction with CPM (r = 0.37 and 0.37, respectively) while associations with trait anxiety and optimism were weak (r = 0.27 and 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term satisfaction and adverse effects remained remarkably stable. It is important that women fully understand the benefits and adverse effects associated with CPM.
Authors: Lisa J Herrinton; William E Barlow; Onchee Yu; Ann M Geiger; Joann G Elmore; Mary B Barton; Emily L Harris; Sharon Rolnick; Roy Pardee; Gail Husson; Ana Macedo; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L L Montgomery; K N Tran; M C Heelan; K J Van Zee; M J Massie; D K Payne; P I Borgen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S K McDonnell; D J Schaid; J L Myers; C S Grant; J H Donohue; J E Woods; M H Frost; J L Johnson; D L Sitta; J M Slezak; T B Crotty; R B Jenkins; T A Sellers; L C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Tanya L Hoskin; Amy C Degnim; Thomas A Sellers; Joanne L Johnson; Melanie J Kasner; Lynn C Hartmann; Marlene H Frost Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-09-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: T C van Sprundel; M K Schmidt; M A Rookus; R Brohet; C J van Asperen; E J Th Rutgers; L J Van't Veer; R A E M Tollenaar Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux C Genoff; Melissa Salerno; Kimberly Amoroso; Sherry R Boyar; Margaret Sheehan; Megan Harlan Fleischut; Beth Siegel; Angela G Arnold; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Melissa A Crosby; Yu Shen; Dalliah M Black; Gildy Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Jun Ying; Wenli Dong; Scott B Cantor; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Yun Li; Ken Resnicow; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Michaela S Tracy; Meghan E Meyer; Karen Sepucha; Shari Gelber; Judi Hirshfield-Bartek; Susan Troyan; Monica Morrow; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391