Rachael Glassey1, Moira O'Connor2, Angela Ives3, Christobel Saunders3, Sarah J Hardcastle2. 1. Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. rachael.glassey@research.uwa.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 3. Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the influences on satisfaction with reconstructed breasts and intimacy following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in younger women (< 35) with a strong family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six women who had undergone BPM between 1 and6 years ago were recruited from New Zealand and Australia through a genetics clinic, registry, research cohort, and online (Mage = 31). Twenty-three were BRCA mutation carriers. Qualitative interviews guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: satisfaction with breasts before surgery, outcome expectations, type of mastectomy, and open communication. Women who liked their breasts pre-BPM appeared less satisfied with their reconstructed breasts post-surgery, and women who disliked their breasts before BPM were more satisfied with their reconstructed breasts. Women with unrealistic expectations concerning the look and feel of reconstructed breasts were often unhappy with their reconstructed breasts and felt they did not meet their expectations. Unrealistic photos of breast reconstruction and satisfactory communication of realistic outcome expectations by surgeons or psychologists also appeared to influence satisfaction. Communication with partners prior to BPM appeared to improve satisfaction with intimacy post-BPM. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that satisfaction with reconstructed breasts for younger women post-BPM appeared to be influenced by realistic outcome expectations and communication with others concerning reconstructed breast appearance and intimacy post-BPM. Implications for practice include discussion of realistic reconstructed breast appearance, referral to a psychologist to discuss sensitive issues, and accurate communication of surgical risks and consequences.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the influences on satisfaction with reconstructed breasts and intimacy following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in younger women (< 35) with a strong family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six women who had undergone BPM between 1 and6 years ago were recruited from New Zealand and Australia through a genetics clinic, registry, research cohort, and online (Mage = 31). Twenty-three were BRCA mutation carriers. Qualitative interviews guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: satisfaction with breasts before surgery, outcome expectations, type of mastectomy, and open communication. Women who liked their breasts pre-BPM appeared less satisfied with their reconstructed breasts post-surgery, and women who disliked their breasts before BPM were more satisfied with their reconstructed breasts. Women with unrealistic expectations concerning the look and feel of reconstructed breasts were often unhappy with their reconstructed breasts and felt they did not meet their expectations. Unrealistic photos of breast reconstruction and satisfactory communication of realistic outcome expectations by surgeons or psychologists also appeared to influence satisfaction. Communication with partners prior to BPM appeared to improve satisfaction with intimacy post-BPM. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that satisfaction with reconstructed breasts for younger women post-BPM appeared to be influenced by realistic outcome expectations and communication with others concerning reconstructed breast appearance and intimacy post-BPM. Implications for practice include discussion of realistic reconstructed breast appearance, referral to a psychologist to discuss sensitive issues, and accurate communication of surgical risks and consequences.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body image; Influencers; Intimacy; Open communication; Prophylactic mastectomy; Young women
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Tulin D Cil; John L Semple; Lucy Dong Xuan Li; Shaghayegh Bagher; Toni Zhong; Sophia Virani; Steven Narod; Tuya Pal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ian M Collins; Roger L Milne; Prue C Weideman; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Michael L Friedlander; John L Hopper; Kelly-Anne Phillips Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Hansje P Smeele; Rachel C H Dijkstra; Merel L Kimman; René R W J van der Hulst; Stefania M H Tuinder Journal: Patient Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.481