Interventions to improve psychosocial well-being in female BRCA-mutation carriers following risk-reducing surgery.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 10 2019
Historique:
aheadofprint: 09 10 2019
entrez: 10 10 2019
pubmed: 10 10 2019
medline: 10 10 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Women who carry a pathogenic mutation in either a BRCA1 DNA repair associated or BRCA2 DNA repair associated (BRCA1 or BRCA2) gene have a high lifetime risk of developing breast and tubo-ovarian cancer. To manage this risk women may choose to undergo risk-reducing surgery to remove breast tissue, ovaries, and fallopian tubes. Surgery should increase survival, but can impact women's lives adversely at the psychological and psychosexual levels. Interventions to facilitate psychological adjustment and improve quality of life post risk-reducing surgery are needed. To examine psychosocial interventions in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery and to evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions on psychological adjustment and quality of life. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science up to April 2019 and Scopus up to January 2018. We also handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised studies (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and interventional studies using baseline and postintervention analyses in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility studies for inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We screened 4956 records from the searches, selecting 34 unique studies for full-text scrutiny, of which two met the inclusion criteria: one RCT and one NRS. The included studies assessed 113 female BRCA carriers who had risk-reducing surgery, but there was attrition, and outcome data were not available for all participants at final study assessments. We assessed the RCT as at a high risk of bias whilst the NRS did not have a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the studies was very low-certainty due to the paucity of data and methodological shortcomings of the studies. The primary outcome of quality of life was only measured in the RCT and that was specific to the menopause. Both studies reported on psychological distress and sexual function. Neither study measured body image, perhaps because this is most often associated with risk-reducing mastectomy rather than oophorectomy.The RCT (66 participants recruited with 48 followed to 12 months) assessed the short- and long-term effects of an eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training programme on quality of life, sexual functioning, and sexual distress in female BRCA carriers (n = 34) in a specialised family cancer clinic in the Netherlands compared to female BRCA carriers (n = 32) who received usual care. Measurements on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) showed some improvement at 3 and 12 months compared to the usual care group. At 3 months the mean MENQOL scores were 3.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 3.9) and 3.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.2) for the MBSR and usual care groups respectively, whilst at 12 months the corresponding values were 3.6 (95% CI 3.1 to 4.0) and 3.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 4.4) (1 study; 48 participants followed up at 12 months). However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very low-certainty of the evidence, where a lower score is better. Other outcome measures on the Female Sexual Function Index and the Female Sexual Distress Scale showed no significant differences between the two groups. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty due to the lack of blinding of participants and personnel, attrition bias and self-selection (as only one-third of eligible women chose to participate in the study) and serious imprecision due to the small sample size and wide 95% CI.The NRS comprised 37 female BRCA carriers selected from three Boston-area hospitals who had undergone a novel sexual health intervention following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) without a history of tubo-ovarian cancer. The intervention consisted of targeted sexual-health education, body awareness and relaxation training, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy strategies, followed by two sessions of tailored telephone counselling. This was a single-arm study without a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty, and as there was no comparison group in the included study, we could not estimate a relative effect. The study reported change in psychosexual adjustment from baseline to postintervention (median 2.3 months) using measures of Female Sexual Function Index (n = 34), which yielded change with a mean of 3.91, standard deviation (SD) 9.12, P = 0.018 (1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Brief Symptom Inventory, Global Severity Index yielded a mean change of 3.92, SD 5.94, P < 0.001. The Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale yielded change with a mean of 12.14, SD 20.56, P < 0.001. The Sexual Knowledge Scale reported mean change of 1.08, SD 1.50, P < 0.001 (n = 36). Participant satisfaction was measured by questionnaire, and 100% participants reported that they enjoyed taking part in the psychoeducation group and felt "certain" or "very certain" that they had learned new skills to help them cope with the sexual side effects of RRSO. The effect of psychosocial interventions on quality of life and emotional well-being in female BRCA carriers who undergo risk-reducing surgery is uncertain given the very low methodological quality in the two studies included in the review. The absence of such interventions highlights the need for partnership between researchers and clinicians in this specific area to take forward the patient-reported outcomes and develop interventions to address the psychosocial issues related to risk-reducing surgery in female BRCA carriers, particularly in this new era of genomics, where testing may become more mainstream and many more women are identified as gene carriers.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Women who carry a pathogenic mutation in either a BRCA1 DNA repair associated or BRCA2 DNA repair associated (BRCA1 or BRCA2) gene have a high lifetime risk of developing breast and tubo-ovarian cancer. To manage this risk women may choose to undergo risk-reducing surgery to remove breast tissue, ovaries, and fallopian tubes. Surgery should increase survival, but can impact women's lives adversely at the psychological and psychosexual levels. Interventions to facilitate psychological adjustment and improve quality of life post risk-reducing surgery are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To examine psychosocial interventions in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery and to evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions on psychological adjustment and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science up to April 2019 and Scopus up to January 2018. We also handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised studies (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and interventional studies using baseline and postintervention analyses in female BRCA carriers who have undergone risk-reducing surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility studies for inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened 4956 records from the searches, selecting 34 unique studies for full-text scrutiny, of which two met the inclusion criteria: one RCT and one NRS. The included studies assessed 113 female BRCA carriers who had risk-reducing surgery, but there was attrition, and outcome data were not available for all participants at final study assessments. We assessed the RCT as at a high risk of bias whilst the NRS did not have a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the studies was very low-certainty due to the paucity of data and methodological shortcomings of the studies. The primary outcome of quality of life was only measured in the RCT and that was specific to the menopause. Both studies reported on psychological distress and sexual function. Neither study measured body image, perhaps because this is most often associated with risk-reducing mastectomy rather than oophorectomy.The RCT (66 participants recruited with 48 followed to 12 months) assessed the short- and long-term effects of an eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training programme on quality of life, sexual functioning, and sexual distress in female BRCA carriers (n = 34) in a specialised family cancer clinic in the Netherlands compared to female BRCA carriers (n = 32) who received usual care. Measurements on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MENQOL) showed some improvement at 3 and 12 months compared to the usual care group. At 3 months the mean MENQOL scores were 3.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 3.9) and 3.8 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.2) for the MBSR and usual care groups respectively, whilst at 12 months the corresponding values were 3.6 (95% CI 3.1 to 4.0) and 3.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 4.4) (1 study; 48 participants followed up at 12 months). However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very low-certainty of the evidence, where a lower score is better. Other outcome measures on the Female Sexual Function Index and the Female Sexual Distress Scale showed no significant differences between the two groups. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty due to the lack of blinding of participants and personnel, attrition bias and self-selection (as only one-third of eligible women chose to participate in the study) and serious imprecision due to the small sample size and wide 95% CI.The NRS comprised 37 female BRCA carriers selected from three Boston-area hospitals who had undergone a novel sexual health intervention following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) without a history of tubo-ovarian cancer. The intervention consisted of targeted sexual-health education, body awareness and relaxation training, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy strategies, followed by two sessions of tailored telephone counselling. This was a single-arm study without a control group. Our GRADE assessment of the evidence was very low-certainty, and as there was no comparison group in the included study, we could not estimate a relative effect. The study reported change in psychosexual adjustment from baseline to postintervention (median 2.3 months) using measures of Female Sexual Function Index (n = 34), which yielded change with a mean of 3.91, standard deviation (SD) 9.12, P = 0.018 (1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Brief Symptom Inventory, Global Severity Index yielded a mean change of 3.92, SD 5.94, P < 0.001. The Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale yielded change with a mean of 12.14, SD 20.56, P < 0.001. The Sexual Knowledge Scale reported mean change of 1.08, SD 1.50, P < 0.001 (n = 36). Participant satisfaction was measured by questionnaire, and 100% participants reported that they enjoyed taking part in the psychoeducation group and felt "certain" or "very certain" that they had learned new skills to help them cope with the sexual side effects of RRSO.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of psychosocial interventions on quality of life and emotional well-being in female BRCA carriers who undergo risk-reducing surgery is uncertain given the very low methodological quality in the two studies included in the review. The absence of such interventions highlights the need for partnership between researchers and clinicians in this specific area to take forward the patient-reported outcomes and develop interventions to address the psychosocial issues related to risk-reducing surgery in female BRCA carriers, particularly in this new era of genomics, where testing may become more mainstream and many more women are identified as gene carriers.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31595976
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012894.pub2
pmc: PMC6784162
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD012894

Références

Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Genet Med. 2010 Dec;12(12):801-7
pubmed: 20921896
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Sep 06;109(1):
pubmed: 27601060
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 16;374(24):2404
pubmed: 27305204
BMJ. 1997 Dec 6;315(7121):1533-7
pubmed: 9432252
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Aug 29;27:32
pubmed: 18759983
Psychooncology. 2009 Dec;18(12):1261-72
pubmed: 19235193
Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Aug;42(6):915-33
pubmed: 23559141
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 20;25(3):285-91
pubmed: 17159191
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 May;27(4):703-707
pubmed: 28399030
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD007064
pubmed: 23152241
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar;46(3):254-9
pubmed: 26685323
Genet Couns. 2010;21(4):423-37
pubmed: 21290972
Psychooncology. 2013 Jan;22(1):212-9
pubmed: 21913283
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 10;25(11):1329-33
pubmed: 17416853
Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 24;3:82
pubmed: 25056145
Breast J. 2008 Jan-Feb;14(1):25-32
pubmed: 18186862
BMJ. 2001 Jul 21;323(7305):157-62
pubmed: 11463691
Breast. 2010 Dec;19(6):462-9
pubmed: 20605453
Fam Cancer. 2012 Jun;11(2):215-24
pubmed: 22198037
Br J Cancer. 2004 Nov 15;91(10):1787-94
pubmed: 15505627
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Nov;66(11):1521-7
pubmed: 23953096
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct;20(11):3422-9
pubmed: 23720070
BJOG. 2019 Feb;126(3):330-339
pubmed: 29542222
J Genet Couns. 2011 Jun;20(3):294-307
pubmed: 21369831
Fam Cancer. 2013 Dec;12(4):621-8
pubmed: 23504064
Maturitas. 2008 Sep-Oct;61(1-2):107-21
pubmed: 19434884
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2006 Dec;15(6):474-9
pubmed: 17106324
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Jan;37(2):189-97
pubmed: 11166145
Fam Cancer. 2013 Sep;12(3):479-87
pubmed: 23224779
J Sex Marital Ther. 2002 Jul-Sep;28(4):317-30
pubmed: 12082670
Semin Surg Oncol. 2000 Jun;18(4):333-8
pubmed: 10805955
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 24;8:CD012464
pubmed: 30141832
Cancer. 2018 Jan 1;124(1):176-182
pubmed: 28881456
Lancet. 2000 Jun 10;355(9220):2015-20
pubmed: 10885351
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;14(2):686-94
pubmed: 17103066
J Clin Med. 2019 Mar 05;8(3):
pubmed: 30841601
Clin J Pain. 2009 Jul-Aug;25(6):520-7
pubmed: 19542801
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Aug;153(1):183-90
pubmed: 26210521
Cancer. 2004 Nov 15;101(10):2327-40
pubmed: 15478194
BJOG. 2019 Feb;126(3):402-411
pubmed: 30222235
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):730-6
pubmed: 26867710
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1411-1420
pubmed: 28240969
Psychooncology. 2000 Nov-Dec;9(6):462-72
pubmed: 11180581
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Oct 15;21(20):3867-74
pubmed: 14551306
Mod Pathol. 2012 May;25(5):740-50
pubmed: 22282309
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jun;25(6):1409-21
pubmed: 26577764
Eur J Cancer. 2002 Mar;38 Suppl 4:S125-33
pubmed: 11858978
Cancer. 2011 Jun 15;117(12):2659-67
pubmed: 21656744
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Mar;26(3):431-6
pubmed: 26807643
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015 Dec;96(3):555-68
pubmed: 26299336
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2807-9
pubmed: 25821000
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Aug;18(4):411-8
pubmed: 24731853
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013 Oct;22(10):825-34
pubmed: 23987739
Gynecol Oncol. 2003 May;89(2):281-7
pubmed: 12713992
J Community Genet. 2010 Dec;1(4):169-73
pubmed: 22460299
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep;24(9):2502-2508
pubmed: 28612125
BJOG. 2017 May;124(6):872-878
pubmed: 28218502
Qual Life Res. 2012 May;21(4):625-31
pubmed: 21725867
Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Nov 25;17:143
pubmed: 26603733
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):594-600
pubmed: 19141360
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008 Oct;61(10):1177-87
pubmed: 17938010
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903-12
pubmed: 9817107
Breast. 2019 Apr;44:120-127
pubmed: 30743225
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;113(4):957-966
pubmed: 19305347
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 09;10:CD012894
pubmed: 31595976
BMC Cancer. 2015 Aug 19;15:593
pubmed: 26286255
Br J Cancer. 2007 Mar 12;96(5):718-24
pubmed: 17285126
Psychosom Med. 1979 May;41(3):209-18
pubmed: 472086
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 May;125(2):320-5
pubmed: 22293042
Fam Cancer. 2011 Mar;10(1):79-85
pubmed: 20852945
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Jun 5;105(11):812-22
pubmed: 23628597
Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2014 Apr 02;12(1):9
pubmed: 24690515
Acta Oncol. 2012 Sep;51(7):934-41
pubmed: 22409595
Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1974;7(0):151-69
pubmed: 4412100
Eur J Cancer. 1998 May;34(6):767-9
pubmed: 9797684
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jun;35(2):62-8
pubmed: 24693956
Psychol Med. 1983 Aug;13(3):595-605
pubmed: 6622612
Maturitas. 2005 Mar 14;50(3):209-21
pubmed: 15734602
J Genet Couns. 2006 Apr;15(2):77-83
pubmed: 16761103
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Nov;154(2):319-28
pubmed: 26518021
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD004708
pubmed: 19370605
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Jun;48(9):1263-8
pubmed: 22105017
J Pathol. 2013 Dec;231(4):402-12
pubmed: 24030860
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002 May;73(2):97-112
pubmed: 12088120
J Sex Marital Ther. 2000 Apr-Jun;26(2):191-208
pubmed: 10782451
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006 Nov-Dec;51(6):e45-9
pubmed: 17081926
Maturitas. 2011 Nov;70(3):261-5
pubmed: 21893388
J Sex Med. 2015 Jan;12(1):189-97
pubmed: 25311333
Psychooncology. 2004 Jan;13(1):14-25
pubmed: 14745742
Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 23;2:81
pubmed: 24059250
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
pubmed: 14583691
Science. 2003 Oct 24;302(5645):643-6
pubmed: 14576434
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Mar;62(3):676-89
pubmed: 9497246
Psychol Med. 1979 Feb;9(1):139-45
pubmed: 424481
Health Educ Behav. 2005 Oct;32(5):654-67
pubmed: 16148211
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jun 1;44(3):497-506
pubmed: 10348277
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jul;122(1):1-9
pubmed: 18594352
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 May;72(5):1117-30
pubmed: 12677558
Br J Health Psychol. 2006 Nov;11(Pt 4):561-80
pubmed: 17032484
Cancer J. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):15-8
pubmed: 19197168
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Sep;22(9):2876-80
pubmed: 25808098
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 20;26(24):3943-9
pubmed: 18711183
Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Jan;152(1):145-150
pubmed: 30414741
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120

Auteurs

Lisa Jeffers (L)

Medical Genetics, Regional Medical Genetics Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Lisburn Road, Belfast, UK, BT9 7AB.

Classifications MeSH