Shantanu N Razdan1, Vishal Patel2, Sarah Jewell3, Colleen M McCarthy4. 1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgical Service, 1275 York Avenue, MRI 1007, New York, NY, 10065, USA. razdans@mskcc.org. 2. Weil Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, MRI-1007, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) is effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in women with a well-defined family history of breast cancer or in women with BRCA 1 or 2 mutations. Evaluating patient-reported outcomes following BPM are thus essential for evaluating success of BPM from patient's perspective. Our systematic review aimed to: (1) identify studies describing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients following BPM with or without reconstruction; (2) assess the effect of BPM with or without reconstruction on HRQOL; and (3) identify predictors of HRQOL post-BPM. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 1082 studies; 22 of these studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Post-BPM, patients are satisfied with the outcomes and report high psychosocial well-being and positive body image. Sexual well-being and somatosensory function are most negatively affected. Vulnerability, psychological distress and preoperative cancer distress are significant negative predictors of quality of life and body image post-BPM. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of high-quality data on outcomes of different HRQOL domains post-BPM. Future studies should strive to use validated and breast-specific PRO instruments for measuring HRQOL. This will facilitate shared decision-making by enabling surgeons to provide evidence-based answers to women contemplating BPM.
PURPOSE: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) is effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in women with a well-defined family history of breast cancer or in women with BRCA 1 or 2 mutations. Evaluating patient-reported outcomes following BPM are thus essential for evaluating success of BPM from patient's perspective. Our systematic review aimed to: (1) identify studies describing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients following BPM with or without reconstruction; (2) assess the effect of BPM with or without reconstruction on HRQOL; and (3) identify predictors of HRQOL post-BPM. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 1082 studies; 22 of these studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Post-BPM, patients are satisfied with the outcomes and report high psychosocial well-being and positive body image. Sexual well-being and somatosensory function are most negatively affected. Vulnerability, psychological distress and preoperative cancer distress are significant negative predictors of quality of life and body image post-BPM. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of high-quality data on outcomes of different HRQOL domains post-BPM. Future studies should strive to use validated and breast-specific PRO instruments for measuring HRQOL. This will facilitate shared decision-making by enabling surgeons to provide evidence-based answers to women contemplating BPM.
Authors: Ann M Geiger; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Lisa J Herrinton; Sharon J Rolnick; Sarah M Greene; Carmen N West; Emily L Harris; Joann G Elmore; Andrea Altschuler; In-Liu A Liu; Suzanne W Fletcher; Karen M Emmons Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Susan Boolbol; Amy Degnim; Henry Kuerer; A Marilyn Leitch; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: L C Hartmann; D J Schaid; J E Woods; T P Crotty; J L Myers; P G Arnold; P M Petty; T A Sellers; J L Johnson; S K McDonnell; M H Frost; R B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; Tara Friebel; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Laura van 't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth R Evans; Steven A Narod; Claudine Isaacs; Ellen Matloff; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colleen M McCarthy; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Ji Qi; Edwin Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
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
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
Authors: Hilary Weingarden; Sabine Wilhelm; Jamie M Jacobs; Julia Carrellas; Curtis Cetrulo; William Gerald Austen; Amy S Colwell Journal: Body Image Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Kate E Dibble; Richard N Baumgartner; Stephanie D Boone; Kathy B Baumgartner; Avonne E Connor Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.624