Literature DB >> 29968023

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

Anya Romanoff1, Emily C Zabor2, Michelle Stempel1, Virgilio Sacchini1, Andrea Pusic3, Monica Morrow4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly used for breast cancer risk reduction and treatment. Prior small studies with variable control for baseline characteristics suggest superior satisfaction with NSM. The purpose of this study was to compare patient satisfaction following NSM and total mastectomy (TM) utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure in a well-characterized patient population.
METHODS: Patients at a single institution undergoing NSM or TM with immediate tissue expander/implant reconstruction who completed a follow-up BREAST-Q from 2007 to 2017 were identified by retrospective review of a prospective database. Baseline characteristics were compared, and linear mixed models were used to analyze associations with BREAST-Q scores over time.
RESULTS: Of 1866 eligible patients, 219 (12%) underwent NSM, and 1647 (88%) underwent TM. Median time from baseline to BREAST-Q was 658 days. Patients with NSM were younger, more likely to be white, and had lower BMI. They more often had prophylactic surgery, bilateral mastectomies, lower-stage disease, and less often received chemotherapy/radiation than patients with TM. On multivariable analysis, after controlling for relevant clinical variables, there was no difference in satisfaction with breasts or satisfaction with outcome overall between NSM and TM patients. Psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being were significantly higher in the NSM group. After additionally controlling for preoperative BREAST-Q score in a subset of patients (72 NSM; 443 TM), only psychosocial well-being remained significantly higher in NSM patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes should be discussed with women weighing the risks and benefits of NSM to provide a better understanding of expected quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29968023      PMCID: PMC6205203          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6585-4

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


  25 in total

1.  Technique of subcutaneous mastectomy with replacement; immediate and delayed.

Authors:  B S Freeman
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  1969-04

2.  Nipple sparing mastectomy for breast cancer is associated with high patient satisfaction and safe oncological outcomes.

Authors:  V Mesdag; C Régis; E Tresch; M-P Chauvet; L Boulanger; P Collinet; S Giard
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-07-08

3.  Complications of subcutaneous mastectomy with prosthetic replacement, immediate or delayed.

Authors:  B S Freeman
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  1967-12       Impact factor: 0.954

4.  Quality-of-Life Outcomes Improve with Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Christopher R Bailey; Onyebuchi Ogbuagu; Pablo A Baltodano; Usamah F Simjee; Michele A Manahan; Damon S Cooney; Lisa K Jacobs; Theodore N Tsangaris; Carisa M Cooney; Gedge D Rosson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Skin Flap Necrosis After Mastectomy With Reconstruction: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Cindy B Matsen; Babak Mehrara; Anne Eaton; Deborah Capko; Anastasia Berg; Michelle Stempel; Kimberly J Van Zee; Andrea Pusic; Tari A King; Hiram S Cody; Melissa Pilewskie; Peter Cordeiro; Lisa Sclafani; George Plitas; Mary L Gemignani; Joseph Disa; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Expanded Indications and Improved Outcomes for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Over Time.

Authors:  Adam C Krajewski; Judy C Boughey; Amy C Degnim; James W Jakub; Steven R Jacobson; Tanya L Hoskin; Tina J Hieken
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 5.344

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

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

8.  Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Anne F Klassen; Amie M Scott; Jennifer A Klok; Peter G Cordeiro; Stefan J Cano
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 9.  Nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy: Review of aims, oncological safety and contraindications.

Authors:  Viviana Galimberti; Elisa Vicini; Giovanni Corso; Consuelo Morigi; Sabrina Fontana; Virgilio Sacchini; Paolo Veronesi
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality?

Authors:  F Didier; D Radice; S Gandini; R Bedolis; N Rotmensz; A Maldifassi; B Santillo; A Luini; V Galimberti; E Scaffidi; F Lupo; S Martella; J Y Petit
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 4.872

View more
  13 in total

1.  A propensity score-matched comparison of recurrence outcomes after immediate implant vs autologous flap reconstruction in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Zhen-Yu Wu; Hyun Ho Han; Hee Jeong Kim; Jong Won Lee; Il Yong Chung; Jisun Kim; Sae Byul Lee; Byung-Ho Son; Jin Sup Eom; Jae Ho Jung; Sung- Bae Kim; Gyungyub Gong; Hak Hee Kim; Sei -Hyun Ahn; BeomSeok Ko
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  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

3.  Quality of Life after Bilateral and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Implant Reconstruction.

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

4.  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

5.  Microwave Ablation Versus Nipple Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer ≤5 cm: A Pilot Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jie Yu; Zhi-Yu Han; Ting Li; Wen-Zhe Feng; Xiao-Ling Yu; Yan-Chun Luo; Han Wu; Jian Jiang; Jian-Dong Wang; Ping Liang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Two-Stage Versus One-Stage Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Timing of Surgery Prevents Nipple Loss.

Authors:  Tammy Ju; Julia Chandler; Arash Momeni; Geoffrey Gurtner; Jacqueline Tsai; Dung Nguyen; Irene Wapnir
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Acellular Biologic Nipple-Areolar Complex Graft: In Vivo Murine and Nonhuman Primate Host Response Evaluation.

Authors:  Nicholas C Pashos; David M Graham; Brian J Burkett; Ben O'Donnell; Rachel A Sabol; Joshua Helm; Elizabeth C Martin; Annie C Bowles; William M Heim; Vince C Caronna; Kristin S Miller; Brooke Grasperge; Scott Sullivan; Abigail E Chaffin; Bruce A Bunnell
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.845

8.  Evolving indications and long-term oncological outcomes of risk-reducing bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  S R Grobmyer; H J Pederson; S A Valente; Z Al-Hilli; D Radford; R Djohan; R Yetman; C Eng; J P Crowe
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2018-11-26

9.  Factors Predicting Locoregional Recurrence After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Zhen-Yu Wu; Hee Jeong Kim; Jong Won Lee; Il Yong Chung; Jisun Kim; Sae Byul Lee; Byung-Ho Son; Jin Sup Eom; Jae Ho Jeong; Gyungyub Gong; Hak Hee Kim; Sei-Hyun Ahn; BeomSeok Ko
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Viability of acellular biologic graft for nipple-areolar complex reconstruction in a non-human primate model.

Authors:  Vincent C Caronna; Allison F Rosenberg; David M Graham; William M Heim; Brooke F Grasperge; Scott K Sullivan; Abigail E Chaffin; Bruce A Bunnell; Nicholas C Pashos
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.