Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sexual Well-Being After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Preservation of the Nipple Matter?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction (immediate or delayed) with and without nipple preservation.

Methods

All female patients undergoing mastectomy between 2011 and 2015 at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified and were mailed the BREAST-Q survey. Breast satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being were evaluated and compared by surgery type using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for univariate analysis and linear regression for multivariable analysis adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

Of 1547 patients, 771 completed the BREAST-Q survey (response rate 50%). Of these 771 respondents, 237 (31%) did not have reconstruction, 198 (26%) had nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction (NSM), and 336 (44%) had skin-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction (SSM) ± nipple–areolar complex (NAC) reconstruction (via surgery ± tattoo). Patients with breast reconstruction had consistently higher BREAST-Q scores versus those without. Comparing NSM with all SSMs, there was no difference in satisfaction with breasts (mean 71.8 vs. 70.2, p = 0.21) or psychosocial well-being (mean 81.9 vs. 81.3, p = 0.47); however, sexual well-being was significantly higher in the NSM group on univariate (mean 64.5 vs. 58.0, p = 0.002) and multivariable (β = −4.69, p = 0.03) analysis. Sexual well-being scores were similar for NSM and the SSM subgroups with any type of NAC reconstruction.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that NSM positively impacts patient sexual well-being after breast reconstruction compared with SSM, particularly SSM without nipple reconstruction or tattoo. SSM with any type of NAC reconstruction achieved similar satisfaction and sexual well-being to those undergoing NSM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer. An overview of the randomized trials. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1444–1455.

  2. Chand ND, Browne V, Paramanathan N, et al. Patient-reported outcomes are better after oncoplastic breast conservation than after mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5:e1419.

  3. Rowland JH, Desmond KA, Meyerowitz BE, et al. Role of breast reconstructive surgery in physical and emotional outcomes among breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1422–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Breast Cancer. 2020, Version 4. Available at: https://www.nccn.org. Accessed 28 Apr 2021.

  5. Matsen CB, Mehrara B, Eaton A, et al. Skin flap necrosis after mastectomy with reconstruction: A prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:257–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee MC, Bhati RS, von Rottenthaler EE, et al. Therapy choices and quality of life in young breast cancer survivors: a short-term follow-up. Am J Surg. 2013;206:625–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Howes BH, Watson DI, Xu C, et al. Quality of life following total mastectomy with and without reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: A case-controlled cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1184–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins KK, Liu Y, Schootman M, et al. Effects of breast cancer surgery and surgical side effects on body image over time. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126:167–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jagsi R, Li Y, Morrow M, et al. Patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes after breast conservation and mastectomy with and without reconstruction: Results of a survey of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sun Y, Kim SW, Heo CY, et al. Comparison of quality of life based on surgical technique in patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44:22–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fung KW, Lau Y, Fielding R, et al. The impact of mastectomy, breast-conserving treatment and immediate breast reconstruction on the quality of life of Chinese women. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71:202-20s6.

  12. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Breast Q – Breast Cancer. Version 2. Available at: http://qportfolio.org/score-breast-q-cancer. Accessed 1 May 2021.

  15. Cano SJ, Klassen A, Pusic AL. The science behind quality-of-life measurement: a primer for plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:98e–106e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, et al. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193-205.

  18. Cano SJ, Hobart JC. Watch out, watch out, the FDA are about. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:408–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. US FDA. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2009. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download.

  21. Metcalfe KA, Cil TD, Semple JL, et al. Long-term psychosocial functioning in women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: Does preservation of the nipple-areolar complex make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3324–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes improve with nipple-sparing mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:219–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN, et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J. 2016;22:10–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M, et al. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2909–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yoon-Flannery K, DeStefano LM, De La Cruz LM, et al. Quality of life and sexual well-being after nipple sparing mastectomy: A matched comparison of patients using the breast Q. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118:238–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Verschuer VM, Mureau MA, Gopie JP, et al. Patient satisfaction and nipple-areola sensitivity after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate implant breast reconstruction in a high breast cancer risk population: Nipple-sparing mastectomy versus skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77:145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelly BN, Faullkner HR, Smith BL, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy versus skin-sparing mastectomy: Does saving the nipple impact short- and long-term patient satisfaction? Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(2):1033–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bykowski MR, Emelife PI, Emelife NN, et al. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction improves psychosocial and sexual well-being in women treated for breast cancer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:209–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smallman A, Crittenden T, MiinYip J, et al. Does nipple-areolar tattooing matter in breast reconstruction? A cohort study using the BREAST-Q. JPRAS Open. 2018;16:61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim H, Park SJ, Woo KJ, et al. Comparative study of nipple-areola complex position and patient satisfaction after unilateral mastectomy and immediate expander-implant reconstruction nipple-sparing mastectomy versus skin-sparing mastectomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43:313–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Depypere B, et al. Nipple reconstruction in autologous breast reconstruction after areola-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(6):1223–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peled AW, Amara D, Piper ML, et al. Development and validation of a nipple-specific scale for the BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:1010–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

    Jennifer M. Racz MD

  2. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Christin A. Harless MD, Minh-Doan T. Nguyen MD, PhD, Judy C. Boughey MD, Tina J. Hieken MD & Amy C. Degnim MD

  3. Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tanya L. Hoskin MS, Courtney N. Day & Ann M. Harris MD

  4. Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA

    Amy C. Degnim MD

Authors
  1. Jennifer M. Racz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christin A. Harless MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanya L. Hoskin MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Courtney N. Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Minh-Doan T. Nguyen MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ann M. Harris MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Judy C. Boughey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tina J. Hieken MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Amy C. Degnim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy C. Degnim MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Jennifer M. Racz, Christin A. Harless, Tanya L. Hoskin, Courtney N. Day, Minh-Doan T. Nguyen, Ann M. Harris, Judy C. Boughey, Tina J. Hieken, and Amy C. Degnim have no disclosures to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Racz, J.M., Harless, C.A., Hoskin, T.L. et al. Sexual Well-Being After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Preservation of the Nipple Matter?. Ann Surg Oncol 29, 4167–4179 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11578-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11578-1

Search

Navigation