Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 3324–3330 | Cite as

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

  • Kelly A. Metcalfe
  • Tulin D. Cil
  • John L. Semple
  • Lucy Dong Xuan Li
  • Shaghayegh Bagher
  • Toni Zhong
  • Sophia Virani
  • Steven Narod
  • Tuya Pal
Breast Oncology

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.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Risk Body Image BRCA Mutation Breast Reconstruction Psychosocial Functioning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hartmann LC, Schaid D, Sellers T, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. American Association for Cancer Research, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:77–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Semple J, Metcalfe KA, Lynch HT, et al. International rates of breast reconstruction after prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3817–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltzer HL, Alonzo-Proulx O, Mainprize JG, et al. MRI volumetric analysis of breast fibroglandular tissue to assess risk of the spared nipple in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1583–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yao K, Liederbach E, Tang R, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an interim analysis and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:370–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peled AW, Duralde E, Foster RD, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after total skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate expander-implant reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72 Suppl 1:S48–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Didier F, Radice D, Gandini S, et al. Does nipple preservation in mastectomy improve satisfaction with cosmetic results, psychological adjustment, body image and sexuality? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118:623–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41:209–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herrmann C. International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a review of validation data and clinical results. J Psychosom Res. 1997;42:17–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, et al. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52:69–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:281–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goel V, Sawka CA, Thiel EC, et al. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sheehan J, Sherman KA, Lam T, et al. Association of information satisfaction, psychological distress and monitoring coping style with post-decision regret following breast reconstruction. Psychooncology. 2007;16:342–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheehan J, Sherman KA, Lam T, et al. Regret associated with the decision for breast reconstruction: the association of negative body image, distress and surgery characteristics with decision regret. Psychol Health. 2008;23:207–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:58–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brandberg Y, Sandelin K, Erikson S, et al. Psychological reactions, quality of life, and body image after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for breast cancer: a prospective 1-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3943–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gopie JP, Mureau MA, Seynaeve C, et al. Body image issues after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with breast reconstruction in healthy women at risk for hereditary breast cancer. Fam Cancer. 2013;12:479–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metcalfe KA, Esplen MJ, Goel V, et al. Psychosocial functioning in women who have undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Psychooncology. 2004;13:14–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, et al. One year follow-up of women opting for presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: emotional impact of the test outcome and decisions on risk management (surveillance or prophylactic surgery). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;73:97–112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1055–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1633–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Metcalfe KA, Mian N, Enmore M, et al. Long-term follow-up of Jewish women with a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation who underwent population genetic screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:735–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graves KD, Vegella P, Poggi EA, et al. Long-term psychosocial outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: differences across affected status and risk-reducing surgery choice. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:445–55.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly A. Metcalfe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tulin D. Cil
    • 3
  • John L. Semple
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lucy Dong Xuan Li
    • 2
    • 4
  • Shaghayegh Bagher
    • 5
  • Toni Zhong
    • 5
  • Sophia Virani
    • 2
  • Steven Narod
    • 2
  • Tuya Pal
    • 6
  1. 1.Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of NursingUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Women’s College Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Women’s College HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.University Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Moffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations