SCARS MAY INDEED “HAVE THE STRANGE POWER TO REMIND US THAT OUR PAST IS REAL”:* A PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES STUDY IN WOMEN WITH POSTMASTECTOMY BREAST RECONSTRUCTION

Abstract

Objective: One of the leading causes of death among women is breast cancer. The disease process and treatment journey consume patients’ emotional and physical energy, severely affecting mood, self-esteem, body image, sexual functions, commitment, and overall quality of life. Postmastectomy breast reconstruction is known to revert some of these adversarial conditions. This study uses patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to investigate the factors influencing the end result and quality of life regarding postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Material and Method: Thirty-four patients who’d undergone breast reconstruction filled out a questionnaire form including 54 questions pertaining the patients’ surgical and oncological history, demographics, mood, self-esteem, body and breast self-image, social and familial support mechanisms, and satisfaction with life and reconstruction. The study then collected anthropometric measurements and standardized photographs and had plastic surgery residents assess aesthetic outcome with regard to the photographs. Result: Half of the patients had immediate while the other half had delayed reconstruction. Of the patients, 10 (29.4%) had reconstructions that only involved an implant, 15 (44.1%) had reconstructions that only involved autogenous tissue, and nine (26.5%) that had both. No significant association could be found for the reconstruction method or timing of the reconstruction with aesthetic results, symmetry, or patient satisfaction. Meanwhile, nipple-areolar complex (NAC) reconstruction contributed to significantly better aesthetic outcomes (p=0.026) and overall patient satisfaction (p=0.029). Scar issues were found to significantly affect satisfaction scores (p=0.008) while not affecting the aesthetic outcome. Conclusion: Neither symmetry nor aesthetic outcome were found to be major factors influencing patients’ overall satisfaction with breast reconstruction. However, scars are relevant as constant reminders of past surgeries. Another significant factor in patient satisfaction was NAC reconstruction.

Keywords

• Breast
• reconstruction
• cancer
• mastectomy
• scars
• nipple

Supporting Institution

yoktur

Project Number

N/A

Thanks

The draft was sent and thoroughly criticized by means of both language and scientific soundness by Elcil Kaya Biçer, MD. (Aegean University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology). No financial interests were involved.

İZLERİN GERÇEKTEN DE ‘ENTERESAN BİR ŞEKİLDE YAŞADIKLARIMIZIN GERÇEK OLDUĞUNU BİZE ANIMSATMA GÜCÜ’* OLABİLİR: MASTEKTOMİ SONRASI MEME REKONSTRÜKSİYONU YAPILMIŞ KADINLARDA HASTA RAPORLU BİR SONUÇ ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Amaç: Meme kanseri kadınlar arasında önde gelen ölüm nedenlerinden biridir. Hastalığın seyri ve tedavisi hastaların duygusal ve fiziksel enerjisini tüketir ve duygu-durumları, özgüvenlerini, cinsel işlevlerini, yaşama bağlılık ve yaşam kalitelerini etkiler. Mastektomi sonrası meme rekonstrüksiyonu ise bu sorunların bir kısmının giderilmesinde yardımcı olabilir. Bu hasta tarafından raporlanan çıktı ölçütleri çalışmasında sonuçları ve hastaların yaşam kalitelerini etkileyen etmenler araştırılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Meme rekonstrüksiyonu geçirmiş toplam 34 hasta cerrahi ve onkolojik öyküleri, demografik verileri, duygu-durumları, beden ve meme öz algıları, sosyal ve ailesel destek mekanizmaları ile yaşam ve rekonstrüksiyondan memnuniyetlerini sorgulayan 54 soruluk bir anket yanıtladı. Sonrasında antropometrik ölçümler ve standardize fotoğraflar alındı. Estetik sonuçları bu fotoğrafların üzerinden değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hastaların yarısına eş zamanlı, yarısına geç dönemde rekonstrüksiyon yapılmıştı. On hastaya (%29,4) sadece implant ile, 15’ine (%44,1) sadece otojen doku ile ve dokuzuna (%26,5) ikisi de yapılmıştı. Rekonstrüksiyon metodu veya zamanlamasının estetik sonuçlar, simetri veya hasta memnuniyetiyle aralarında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunamadı. Bununla beraber meme başı-areola kompleksi (MAK) rekonstrüksiyonu yapılmış olması hem estetik sonuçları (p=0,026), hem de hasta memnuniyetini (p=0,029) anlamlı derecede olumlu yönde etkilemişti. Donör morbiditeleri estetik sonuçlar ve hasta memnuniyeti üzerinde anlamlı bir olumsuz etki oluşturmamıştı. Ancak nedbe sorunları estetik sonuçları anlamlı derecede etkilemezken hasta memnuniyetini olumsuz yönde etkileyen tek etmen olarak ortaya çıkmıştır (p=0,008). Sonuç: Meme rekonstrüksiyonunda memnuniyeti anlamlı ölçüde etkileyen etmenler arasında simetri ve estetik sonuç bulunmazken süreci kendilerine anımsatan nedbe sorunları bulunmuştur. Hasta memnuniyetini anlamlı derecede etkileyen bir diğer etmen ise MAK onarımı yapılmış olmasıdır.

Keywords

• Meme
• rekonstrüksiyon
• kanser
• mastektomi
• nedbe
• meme başı

Project Number

N/A

References

1. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69(6):438-51. [CrossRef] google scholar
2. DeSantis C, Siegel R, Bandi P, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2011. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(6):409-18. [CrossRef] google scholar
3. Mokhtari-Hessari P, Montazeri A. Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: review of reviews from 2008 to 2018. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020;18(1):338. [CrossRef] google scholar
4. Carreira H, Williams R, Müller M, Harewood R, Stanway S, Bhaskaran K. Associations Between Breast Cancer Survivorship and Adverse Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110(12):1311-27. [CrossRef] google scholar
5. Hummel SB, van Lankveld JJ, Oldenburg HS, Hahn DE, Broomans E, Aaronson NK. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for sexual dysfunctions in women treated for breast cancer: design of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2015;15:321. [CrossRef] google scholar
6. Keesing S, Rosenwax L, McNamara B. A dyadic approach to understanding the impact of breast cancer on relationships between partners during early survivorship. BMC Womens Health 2016;16(1):57. [CrossRef] google scholar
7. Gilbert E, Ussher JM, Perz J. Sexuality after breast cancer: a review. Maturitas 2010;66(4):397-407. [CrossRef] google scholar
8. Loaring JM, Larkin M, Shaw R, Flowers P. Renegotiating sexual intimacy in the context of altered embodiment: the experiences of women with breast cancer and their male partners following mastectomy and reconstruction. Health Psychol 2015;34(4):426-36. [CrossRef] google scholar

9. Nair NS, Penumadu P, Yadav P, Sethi N, Kohli PS, Shankhdhar V, et al. Awareness and Acceptability of Breast Reconstruction Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Survey. JCO Glob Oncol 2021;7:253-60. [CrossRef] google scholar
10. Yang B, Li L, Yan W, Chen J, Chen Y, Hu Z, et al. The Type of Breast Reconstruction May Not Influence Patient Satisfaction in the Chinese Population: A Single Institutional Experience. PLoS One 2015;10(11):e0142900. [CrossRef] google scholar
11. Menez T, Michot A, Tamburino S, Weigert R, Pinsolle V Multicenter evaluation of quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction, a long-term retrospective study. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2018;63(2):126-33. [CrossRef] google scholar
12. Alderman AK, Wilkins EG, Lowery JC, Kim M, Davis JA. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;106(4):769-76. [CrossRef] google scholar
13. Satteson ES, Brown BJ, Nahabedian MY. Nipple-areolar complex reconstruction and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gland Surg 2017;6(1):4-13. [CrossRef] google scholar
14. Cordova LZ, Hunter-Smith DJ, Rozen WM. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following mastectomy with breast reconstruction or without reconstruction: a systematic review. Gland Surg 2019;8(4):441-51. [CrossRef] google scholar
15. Namnoum JD. Options for the Contralateral Breast in Breast Reconstruction. In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the Breast Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 888-93. google scholar
16. Spear SL, Little JW, Bogue DP. Nipple-Areola Reconstruction. In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the Breast 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 894-905. google scholar
17. Türk KE, Yılmaz M. The Effect on Quality of Life and Body Image of Mastectomy Among Breast Cancer Survivors. Eur J Breast Health 2018;14(4):205-10. [CrossRef] google scholar
18. Biçer A. In pursuit of usable parameters for assessing the results of breast reconstruction. Specialty master thesis, İstanbul, 2010. google scholar
19. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 2015;150(1):9-16. [CrossRef] google scholar
20. Rodby KA, Danielson KK, Shay E, Robinson E, Benjamin M, Antony AK. Trends in Breast Reconstruction by Ethnicity: An Institutional Review Centered on the Treatment of an Urban Population. Am Surg 2016;82(6):497-504. [CrossRef] google scholar
21. Korkmaz A, Korkut G. Türkiye’de kadının işgücüne katılımının belirleyicileri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2012;17(2):41-65. google scholar
22. Chang EI, Carlsen BT, Festekjian JH, Da Lio AL, Crisera CA. Salvage rates of compromised free flap breast reconstruction after recurrent thrombosis. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71(1):68-71. [CrossRef] google scholar
23. Heidekrueger PI, Moellhoff N, Horch RE, Lohmeyer JA, Marx M, Heitmann C, et al. Overall Complication Rates of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstructions in Germany-A Multi-Center Analysis Based on the DGPRÂC Prospective National Online Registry for Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions. J Clin Med 2021;10(5):1016. [CrossRef] google scholar
24. Crompvoets S. Comfort, control, or conformity: women who choose breast reconstruction following mastectomy. Health Care Women Int 2006;27(1):75-93. [CrossRef] google scholar
25. Carr TL, Groot G, Cochran D, Vancoughnett M, Holtslander L. Exploring Women’s Support Needs After Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Qualitative Study. Cancer Nurs 2019;42(2):E1-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
26. Al-Ghazal SK, Sully L, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. The psychological impact of immediate rather than delayed breast reconstruction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26(1):17-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
27. Kim J, Han JY, Shaw B, McTavish F, Gustafson D. The roles of social support and coping strategies in predicting breast cancer patients’ emotional well-being: testing mediation and moderation models. J Health Psychol 2010;15(4):543-52. [CrossRef] google scholar
28. Adam A, Koranteng F. Availability, accessibility, and impact of social support on breast cancer treatment among breast cancer patients in Kumasi, Ghana: A qualitative study. PLoS One 2020;15(4):e0231691. [CrossRef] google scholar
29. Gotay CC, Lau AK. Preferences for Psychosocial Interventions Among Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients from a Multiethnic Population. J Psychosoc Oncol 2002;20(4):23-37. [CrossRef] google scholar
30. Burwell SR, Case LD, Kaelin C, Avis NE. Sexual problems in younger women after breast cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(18):2815-21. [CrossRef] google scholar
31. Archangelo SCV, Sabino Neto M, Veiga DF, Garcia EB, Ferreira LM. Sexuality, depression and body image after breast reconstruction. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2019;74:e883. [CrossRef] google scholar
32. Everaars KE, Welbie M, Hummelink S, Tjin EPM, de Laat EH, Ulrich DJO. The impact of scars on health-related quality of life after breast surgery: a qualitative exploration. J Cancer Surviv 2021;15(2):224-33. [CrossRef] google scholar
33. Joyce CW, Murphy S, Murphy S, Kelly JL, Morrison CM. Scar Wars: Preferences in Breast Surgery. Arch Plast Surg 2015;42(5):596-600. [CrossRef] google scholar
34. Shaikh-Naidu N, Preminger BA, Rogers K, Messina P, Gayle LB. Determinants of aesthetic satisfaction following TRAM and implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2004;52(5):465-70. [CrossRef] google scholar
35. Smallman A, Crittenden T, MiinYip J, Dean NR. Does nipple-areolar tattooing matter in breast reconstruction? A cohort study using the BREAST-Q. JPRAS Open 2018;16:61-8. [CrossRef] google scholar
36. Potter S, Barker J, Willoughby L, Perrott E, Cawthorn SJ, Sahu AK. Patient satisfaction and time-saving implications of a nurse-led nipple and areola reconstitution service following breast reconstruction. Breast 2007;16(3):293-6. [CrossRef] google scholar
37. Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: history and an update on current technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59(6):571-9. [CrossRef] google scholar
38. Li AY, Momeni A. Abdominal Flap-based Breast Reconstruction versus Abdominoplasty: The Impact of Surgical Procedure on Scar Location. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(9):e3112. [CrossRef] google scholar
39. Lindegren A, Halle M, Docherty Skogh AC, Edsander-Nord Â. Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in the irradiated breast: a comparative study of DIEP and latissimus dorsi flap outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130(1):10-8. [CrossRef] google scholar
40. Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T, Nyame TT, Gautam S, Morris DJ, et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125(6):1585-95. [CrossRef] google scholar
41. Alderman AK, Kuhn LE, Lowery JC, Wilkins EG. Does patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction change over time? Two-year results of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Study. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204(1):7-12. [CrossRef] google scholar
42. Kececi Y, Sir E, Zengel B. Validation of the Turkish version of the Breast Reduction Assessed Severity Scale. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33(1):66-74. [CrossRef] google scholar
43. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124(2):345-53. [CrossRef] google scholar