Short-term Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy for Patients at a High Risk for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Annals of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1245/s10434-024-16805-5
Koumani W Ntowe, Michael S Lee, Victoria N Yi, Samantha J Kaplan, Brett T Phillips, Akiko Chiba, Jennifer K Plichta
{"title":"Short-term Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Bilateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy for Patients at a High Risk for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Koumani W Ntowe, Michael S Lee, Victoria N Yi, Samantha J Kaplan, Brett T Phillips, Akiko Chiba, Jennifer K Plichta","doi":"10.1245/s10434-024-16805-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomies (RRMs) have been proven to decrease the risk of breast cancer in patients at high risk owing to family history or having pathogenic genetic mutations. However, few resources with consolidated data have detailed the patient experience following surgery. This systematic review features patient-reported outcomes for patients with no breast cancer history in the year after their bilateral RRM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were used to identify studies. Studies were then evaluated by multiple authors, and their quality was assessed by using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search identified 1858 unique studies, of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. Only two of these studies included patients who did not receive postmastectomy reconstruction. The included studies were either retrospective cohort studies or prospective studies. General satisfaction with the outcome of RRM and the decision to undergo RRM was high across many of the studies, with low levels of regret. There was also a noticeable trend of improved psychosocial outcomes following RRM. For postoperative sexual well-being, body image, aesthetic satisfactions, and somatosensory function, there were a mix of positive and negative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The patients who elected to manage their breast cancer risk with bilateral RRM (mostly with reconstruction) tend to be satisfied with their decision and the surgical outcomes. This may be related to decreased cancer-related anxiety. Postmastectomy psychosocial well-being tends to improve while physical health after surgery varies by patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":8229,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"2510-2525"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11888891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16805-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomies (RRMs) have been proven to decrease the risk of breast cancer in patients at high risk owing to family history or having pathogenic genetic mutations. However, few resources with consolidated data have detailed the patient experience following surgery. This systematic review features patient-reported outcomes for patients with no breast cancer history in the year after their bilateral RRM.

Methods: The databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were used to identify studies. Studies were then evaluated by multiple authors, and their quality was assessed by using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score.

Results: Our search identified 1858 unique studies, of which 11 met our inclusion criteria. Only two of these studies included patients who did not receive postmastectomy reconstruction. The included studies were either retrospective cohort studies or prospective studies. General satisfaction with the outcome of RRM and the decision to undergo RRM was high across many of the studies, with low levels of regret. There was also a noticeable trend of improved psychosocial outcomes following RRM. For postoperative sexual well-being, body image, aesthetic satisfactions, and somatosensory function, there were a mix of positive and negative outcomes.

Conclusions: The patients who elected to manage their breast cancer risk with bilateral RRM (mostly with reconstruction) tend to be satisfied with their decision and the surgical outcomes. This may be related to decreased cancer-related anxiety. Postmastectomy psychosocial well-being tends to improve while physical health after surgery varies by patient.

高风险乳腺癌患者双侧降低风险乳房切除术后患者报告的短期预后:一项系统综述
背景:双侧降低风险乳房切除术(RRMs)已被证明可以降低因家族史或有致病性基因突变的高危患者患乳腺癌的风险。然而,很少有整合数据的资源详细介绍了手术后患者的体验。本系统综述的特点是患者报告的双侧RRM后一年无乳腺癌病史的患者的预后。方法:采用MEDLINE、Embase和Scopus数据库进行文献检索。然后由多位作者对研究进行评估,并使用非随机研究的方法学指数评分来评估其质量。结果:我们的检索确定了1858个独特的研究,其中11个符合我们的纳入标准。其中只有两项研究纳入了未接受乳房切除术后重建的患者。纳入的研究要么是回顾性队列研究,要么是前瞻性研究。在许多研究中,对RRM的结果和接受RRM的决定的总体满意度很高,后悔的程度很低。RRM后的社会心理结果也有明显的改善趋势。对于术后性健康、身体形象、审美满意度和体感功能,有积极和消极的结果。结论:选择双侧RRM(多为重建)来控制乳腺癌风险的患者往往对其决定和手术结果感到满意。这可能与减少癌症相关的焦虑有关。乳房切除术后的心理社会健康倾向于改善,而手术后的身体健康因患者而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
1698
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgical Oncology is the official journal of The Society of Surgical Oncology and is published for the Society by Springer. The Annals publishes original and educational manuscripts about oncology for surgeons from all specialities in academic and community settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信