Literature DB >> 26208581

Long-Term Psychosocial Functioning in Women with Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Does Preservation of the Nipple-Areolar Complex Make a Difference?

Kelly A Metcalfe1, Tulin D Cil, John L Semple, Lucy Dong Xuan Li, Shaghayegh Bagher, Toni Zhong, Sophia Virani, Steven Narod, Tuya Pal.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is an option for women at high-risk for breast cancer, and may offer better cosmetic results than a skin-sparing PM where the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) is removed. However, there may be residual breast cancer risk due to the maintained NAC. It is unclear if sparing the NAC with PM impacts on psychosocial functioning, including cancer-related distress and body image after PM.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study of women who had undergone bilateral PM (no previous breast cancer) recruited through surgical or cancer genetics clinics. All women completed standardized questionnaires assessing cancer-related distress, anxiety, depression, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and health-related quality of life related to breast surgery. Outcomes were compared between women with nipple-areola-sparing PM (NAC-PM) and skin-sparing PM (SS-PM).
RESULTS: Overall, 137 women completed the study; 53 (39%) had NAC-PM and 84 (61%) had SS-PM. The mean age of the study population was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) 8.8] and the mean time between PM and questionnaire completion was 50 months (SD 31). On the BREAST-Q, we found that women with NAC-PM had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.01), satisfaction with outcome (p = 0.02), and sexual well-being (p < 0.001) compared with SS-PM. No statistically significant differences in total cancer-related distress (p = 0.89), anxiety (p = 0.86), or depression (p = 0.93) were observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, women with NAC-PM had better body image and sexual functioning compared with women with SS-PM, while both groups had comparable levels of cancer-related distress and perception of breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26208581     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4761-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  31 in total

1.  Patient satisfaction with nipple-sparing mastectomy: A prospective study of patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q.

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

2.  Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Incisions for Cancer Extirpation Prospective Cohort Trial: Perfusion, Complications, and Patient Outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Odom; Rajiv P Parikh; Grace Um; Simone W Kantola; Amy E Cyr; Julie A Margenthaler; Marissa M Tenenbaum; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 3.  Nipple sparing mastectomy and the evolving direct to implant breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Gudjon Leifur Gunnarsson; Lene Nyhøj Heidemann; Camilla Bille; Jens Ahm Sørensen; Jørn Bo Thomsen
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-06

4.  Prospective evaluation of skin and nipple-areola sensation and patient satisfaction after nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Lesly A Dossett; Janell Lowe; Weihong Sun; M C Lee; Paul D Smith; Paul B Jacobsen; Christine Laronga
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 5.  Risk-reducing mastectomy.

Authors:  Federica Chiesa; Virgilio S Sacchini
Journal:  Minerva Ginecol       Date:  2016-01-19

6.  Health-Related Quality of Life After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Results From the INSPIRE Registry.

Authors:  Antonio J Esgueva; Iris Noordhoek; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Martin Espinosa-Bravo; Zoltán Mátrai; Andrii Zhygulin; Arvids Irmejs; Carlos Mavioso; Francesco Meani; Eduardo González; Murat Özdemir; Tanir Allweis; Karol Rogowski; Catarina Rodrigues Dos Santos; Henrique Mora; Riccardo Ponzone; Domenico Samorani; Cornelis van de Velde; Riccardo A Audisio; Isabel T Rubio
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Conventional Mastectomy with Reconstruction.

Authors:  Anya Romanoff; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Virgilio Sacchini; Andrea Pusic; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Influences on Satisfaction with Reconstructed Breasts and Intimacy in Younger Women Following Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: a Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  Rachael Glassey; Moira O'Connor; Angela Ives; Christobel Saunders; Sarah J Hardcastle
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2018-08

Review 9.  Clinical outcomes of patients after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction based on the expander/implant technique.

Authors:  Uhi Toh; Miki Takenaka; Nobutaka Iwakuma; Yoshito Akagi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 2.549

10.  Evidence based outcomes of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Registry.

Authors:  Sunny D Mitchell; Shawna C Willey; Peter Beitsch; Sheldon Feldman
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.