PURPOSE: To determine whether satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) differ between women who do and do not undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the setting of implant reconstruction using the BREAST-Q, a validated patient-reported outcome instrument. METHODS: From 2000 to 2007, a total of 3,874 patients with stage 0 to III unilateral breast cancer (BC) had mastectomy; 688 (18 %) pursued CPM within 1 year. Patients who completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module as part of BREAST-Q validation studies or routine clinical care formed our study cohort. Comparisons were made between CPM and no-CPM patients using univariate analysis and multivariate models (MVA). RESULTS: Of 294 patients with BREAST-Q data, 112 (38 %) had CPM. Median time from mastectomy to BREAST-Q was 52 months. CPM patients were younger (mean 47 vs. 50 years), more likely to be White (98 vs. 86 %), married (84 vs. 71 %), have a family history of BC (60 vs. 44 %), and to choose silicone implants (67 vs. 48 %). There were no differences in tumor or treatment characteristics between groups at the time of BREAST-Q. Patients with CPM had a higher mean score for Satisfaction with Breasts (64.4 vs. 54.9; p < 0.001) and Satisfaction with Outcome (74.8 vs. 67.7; p = 0.007); other HR-QoL domains did not differ. On MVA, CPM and the absence of lymphedema were significant predictors of Satisfaction with Breasts (CPM p = 0.005, lymphedema p = 0.039). CPM was not associated with improved Satisfaction with Outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in the setting of implant reconstruction, CPM has a positive correlation with patient satisfaction with their breasts, but not with improvements in other HR-QoL domains.
PURPOSE: To determine whether satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) differ between women who do and do not undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the setting of implant reconstruction using the BREAST-Q, a validated patient-reported outcome instrument. METHODS: From 2000 to 2007, a total of 3,874 patients with stage 0 to III unilateral breast cancer (BC) had mastectomy; 688 (18 %) pursued CPM within 1 year. Patients who completed the BREAST-Q reconstruction module as part of BREAST-Q validation studies or routine clinical care formed our study cohort. Comparisons were made between CPM and no-CPM patients using univariate analysis and multivariate models (MVA). RESULTS: Of 294 patients with BREAST-Q data, 112 (38 %) had CPM. Median time from mastectomy to BREAST-Q was 52 months. CPM patients were younger (mean 47 vs. 50 years), more likely to be White (98 vs. 86 %), married (84 vs. 71 %), have a family history of BC (60 vs. 44 %), and to choose silicone implants (67 vs. 48 %). There were no differences in tumor or treatment characteristics between groups at the time of BREAST-Q. Patients with CPM had a higher mean score for Satisfaction with Breasts (64.4 vs. 54.9; p < 0.001) and Satisfaction with Outcome (74.8 vs. 67.7; p = 0.007); other HR-QoL domains did not differ. On MVA, CPM and the absence of lymphedema were significant predictors of Satisfaction with Breasts (CPM p = 0.005, lymphedema p = 0.039). CPM was not associated with improved Satisfaction with Outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in the setting of implant reconstruction, CPM has a positive correlation with patient satisfaction with their breasts, but not with improvements in other HR-QoL domains.
Authors: Cindy H Wei; Amie M Scott; Alison N Price; Helen Catherine Miller; Anne F Klassen; Sabrina M Jhanwar; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Colleen McCarthy; Evan Matros; Peter G Cordeiro; Virgilio Sacchini; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Breast J Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Michael A Howard; Mark Sisco; Katharine Yao; David J Winchester; Ermilo Barrera; Jeremy Warner; Jennifer Jaffe; Peter Hulick; Kristine Kuchta; Andrea L Pusic; Stephen F Sener Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Adeyiza O Momoh; Wess A Cohen; Kelley M Kidwell; Jennifer B Hamill; Ji Qi; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins; Evan Matros Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Mirelle Lagendijk; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Tari A King; Christopher Gibbons; Andrea Pusic; Laura S Dominici Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: J E Squires; S N Simard; S Asad; D Stacey; I D Graham; M Coughlin; M Clemons; J M Grimshaw; J Zhang; J M Caudrelier; A Arnaout Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Wess A Cohen; Lily R Mundy; Tiffany N S Ballard; Anne Klassen; Stefan J Cano; John Browne; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.740