Literature DB >> 26782950

Psychosocial and Sexual Well-Being Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Reconstruction.

Cindy H Wei1, Amie M Scott1, Alison N Price1, Helen Catherine Miller1, Anne F Klassen2, Sabrina M Jhanwar1, Babak J Mehrara1, Joseph J Disa1, Colleen McCarthy1, Evan Matros1, Peter G Cordeiro1, Virgilio Sacchini3, Andrea L Pusic1.   

Abstract

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is considered an oncologically safe option for select patients. As many patients are candidates for nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), reliable patient-reported outcome data are crucial for decision-making. The objective of this study was to determine whether patient satisfaction and/or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were improved by preservation of the nipple with NSM compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Subjects were identified from a prospectively maintained database of patients who completed the BREAST-Q following mastectomy and breast reconstruction between March and October 2011 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Fifty-two patients underwent NSM followed by immediate expander-implant reconstruction. A comparison group consisted of 202 patients who underwent SSM followed by immediate expander-implant reconstruction and later nipple reconstruction. HRQOL and satisfaction domains as measured by BREAST-Q scores were compared in multivariate linear regression analyzes that controlled for potential confounding factors. NSM patients reported significantly higher scores in the psychosocial (p = 0.01) and sexual well-being (p = 0.02) domains compared to SSM patients. There was no significant difference in the BREAST-Q physical well-being, satisfaction with breast, or satisfaction with outcome domains between the NSM and SSM groups. NSM is associated with higher psychosocial and sexual well-being compared to SSM and nipple reconstruction. Preoperative discussion of such HRQOL outcomes with patients may facilitate informed decision-making and realistic postoperative expectations.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BREAST-Q; breast reconstruction; health-related quality of life; implant reconstruction; nipple-sparing mastectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26782950      PMCID: PMC4843778          DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12542

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


  32 in total

1.  The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples.

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Body image issues after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with breast reconstruction in healthy women at risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  Jessica P Gopie; Marc A M Mureau; Caroline Seynaeve; Moniek M Ter Kuile; Marian B E Menke-Pluymers; Reinier Timman; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Patient satisfaction following nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and tattooing.

Authors:  S C J Goh; N A Martin; A N Pandya; R I Cutress
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  Body image and psychological distress after prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction in genetically predisposed women: a prospective long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Mariska den Heijer; Caroline Seynaeve; Reinier Timman; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Kathleen Vanheusden; Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers; Aad Tibben
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2011-11-19       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Peter Mallon; Jean-Guillaume Feron; Benoit Couturaud; Alfred Fitoussi; Perig Lemasurier; Thierry Guihard; Isabelle Cothier-Savay; Fabien Reyal
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Patient satisfaction following nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: an 8-year outcome study.

Authors:  Risal Djohan; Earl Gage; James Gatherwright; Sabrina Pavri; Jimmy Firouz; Steven Bernard; Randall Yetman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Patient satisfaction in relation to nipple reconstruction: the importance of information provision.

Authors:  D Harcourt; C Russell; J Hughes; P White; C Nduka; R Smith
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  The impact of nipple reconstruction on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Adeyiza O Momoh; Salih Colakoglu; Catherine de Blacam; Janet H Yueh; Samuel J Lin; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.539

9.  Long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implant reconstruction.

Authors:  Starr Koslow; Lindsay A Pharmer; Amie M Scott; Michelle Stempel; Monica Morrow; Andrea L Pusic; Tari A King
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Increasing eligibility for nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Suzanne B Coopey; Rong Tang; Lan Lei; Phoebe E Freer; Kari Kansal; Amy S Colwell; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; William G Austen; Barbara L Smith
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  37 in total

Review 1.  Trends and controversies in multidisciplinary care of the patient with breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  The Landmark Series: Mastectomy Trials (Skin-Sparing and Nipple-Sparing and Reconstruction Landmark Trials).

Authors:  Leisha C Elmore; Jill R Dietz; Terence M Myckatyn; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the army of women study.

Authors:  Sarah Fuzesi; Stefan J Cano; Anne F Klassen; Dunya Atisha; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Cancer: A systematic review of patient-reported measures for sexual dysfunction.

Authors:  Meryl Alappattu; Shana E Harrington; Alexandra Hill; Amanda Roscow; Alicia Jeffrey
Journal:  Rehabil Oncol       Date:  2017-07

Review 6.  Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Aurelia Trisliana Perdanasari; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sarth Raj; Sebastian J Winocour; Rene D Largo
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

7.  Use of bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with high risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  M G Valero; T-A Moo; S Muhsen; E C Zabor; M Stempel; A Pusic; M L Gemignani; M Morrow; V Sacchini
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 8.  Creating Value in Plastic Surgery.

Authors:  Faryan Jalalabadi; Shayan A Izaddoost; Edward M Reece
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 2.314

9.  Oncologic Safety of Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in a Population With BRCA Mutations: A Multi-institutional Study.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Anne Warren Peled; Richard J Gray; Rachel A Greenup; John V Kiluk; Virgilio Sacchini; Sarah A McLaughlin; Julia C Tchou; Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Shawna Willey
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Nipple Preservation in Breast Cancer Associated with Nipple Discharge.

Authors:  Rita Y K Chang; Polly S Y Cheung
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.