Impact of Mastectomy Flap Necrosis on Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Measures After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Preliminary Analysis.
BREAST-Q
Breast cancer
Breast satisfaction
Mastectomy
Nipple-sparing mastectomy
Patient-reported outcome measures
Skin flap necrosis
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jul 2024
11 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
27
10
2023
accepted:
12
06
2024
medline:
11
7
2024
pubmed:
11
7
2024
entrez:
11
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (SFN) is common following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), but studies on its quality-of-life (QOL) impact are limited. We examined patient-reported QOL and satisfaction after NSM with/without SFN utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) survey. Patients undergoing NSM between April 2018 and July 2021 at our institution were examined; the BREAST-Q PROM was administered preoperatively, and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. SFN extent/severity was documented at 2-3 weeks postoperatively; QOL and satisfaction domains were compared between patients with/without SFN. A total of 573 NSMs in 333 patients were included, and 135 breasts in 82 patients developed SFN (24% superficial, 56% partial thickness, 16% full thickness). Patients with SFN reported significantly lower scores in the satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.032) and psychosocial QOL domains (p = 0.009) at 6 months versus those without SFN, with scores returning to baseline at 1 year in both domains. In the "physical well-being-of-the-chest" domain, there was an overall decline in scores among all patients; however, there were no significant differences at any time point between patients with or without SFN. Sexual well-being scores declined for patients with SFN compared with those without at 6 months and also at 1 year, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.13, p = 0.2, respectively). Patients undergoing NSM who developed SFN reported significantly lower satisfaction and psychosocial well-being scores at 6 months, which returned to baseline by 1 year. Physical well-being of the chest significantly declines after NSM regardless of SFN. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to determine SFN's impact on long-term QOL.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mastectomy skin flap necrosis (SFN) is common following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), but studies on its quality-of-life (QOL) impact are limited. We examined patient-reported QOL and satisfaction after NSM with/without SFN utilizing the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) survey.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Patients undergoing NSM between April 2018 and July 2021 at our institution were examined; the BREAST-Q PROM was administered preoperatively, and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. SFN extent/severity was documented at 2-3 weeks postoperatively; QOL and satisfaction domains were compared between patients with/without SFN.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 573 NSMs in 333 patients were included, and 135 breasts in 82 patients developed SFN (24% superficial, 56% partial thickness, 16% full thickness). Patients with SFN reported significantly lower scores in the satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.032) and psychosocial QOL domains (p = 0.009) at 6 months versus those without SFN, with scores returning to baseline at 1 year in both domains. In the "physical well-being-of-the-chest" domain, there was an overall decline in scores among all patients; however, there were no significant differences at any time point between patients with or without SFN. Sexual well-being scores declined for patients with SFN compared with those without at 6 months and also at 1 year, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.13, p = 0.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing NSM who developed SFN reported significantly lower satisfaction and psychosocial well-being scores at 6 months, which returned to baseline by 1 year. Physical well-being of the chest significantly declines after NSM regardless of SFN. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to determine SFN's impact on long-term QOL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38990221
doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15681-3
pii: 10.1245/s10434-024-15681-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant
ID : P30CA008748
Informations de copyright
© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Vieira R, Bailão-Junior A, de Oliveira-Junior I. Does breast oncoplastic surgery improve quality of life? Front Oncol. 2022;12:1099125.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1099125
pubmed: 36713564
Lemaine V, Hoskin TL, Farley DR, et al. Introducing the SKIN score: a validated scoring system to assess severity of mastectomy skin flap necrosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(9):2925–32.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4409-3
pubmed: 25634782
Matsen CB, Mehrara B, Eaton A, et al. Skin flap necrosis after mastectomy with reconstruction: a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):257–64.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4709-7
pubmed: 26193963
Valero MG, Moo TA, Muhsen S, et al. Use of bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with high risk of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2020;107(10):1307–12.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11616
pubmed: 32432359
Houvenaeghel G, Cohen M, Dammacco MA, et al. Prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: results of a French prospective trial. Br J Surg. 2021;108(3):296–301.
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znaa082
pubmed: 33793719
Voineskos SH, Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Pusic AL, Gibbons CJ. Giving meaning to differences in BREAST-Q scores: minimal important difference for breast reconstruction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(1):11e–20e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006317
pubmed: 31577663
Clarijs ME, Peeters N, van Dongen SAF, et al. Quality of life and complications after nipple- versus skin-sparing mastectomy followed by immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152(1):12e–24e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010155
pubmed: 36728484
Romanoff A, Zabor EC, Stempel M, Sacchini V, Pusic A, Morrow M. A comparison of patient-reported outcomes after nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional mastectomy with reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2909–16.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6585-4
pubmed: 29968023
pmcid: 6205203
Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):120–7.
doi: 10.1097/01.SLA.0000077922.38307.cd
pubmed: 12832974
pmcid: 1422651
Ueda S, Tamaki Y, Yano K, et al. Cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction after skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer with immediate reconstruction of the breast. Surgery. 2008;143(3):414–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.10.006
pubmed: 18291263
Agha RA, Al Omran Y, Wellstead G, et al. Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy. BJS Open. 2019;3(2):135–45.
doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50119
pubmed: 30957059
Lai HW, Lee YY, Chen ST, et al. Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) or skin flap ischemia necrosis post nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM)-analysis of clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features. World J Surg Oncol. 2023;21(1):23.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-02898-x
pubmed: 36694205
pmcid: 9875411
Moo TA, Nelson JA, Sevilimedu V, et al. Strategies to avoid mastectomy skin-flap necrosis during nipple-sparing mastectomy. Br J Surg. 2023;110(7):831–8.
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad107
pubmed: 37178195
pmcid: 10517092
Park S, Yoon C, Bae SJ, et al. Comparison of complications according to incision types in nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Breast. 2020;53:85–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.009
pubmed: 32653836
pmcid: 7375566
Alperovich M, Choi M, Frey JD, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with prior breast irradiation: are patients at higher risk for reconstructive complications? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(2):202e–6e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000321
pubmed: 25068341
Valero MG, Muhsen S, Moo TA, et al. Increase in utilization of nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: indications, complications, and oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(2):344–51.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07948-x
pubmed: 31823173
Woodward S, Willis A, Lazar M, Berger AC, Tsangaris T. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: A review of outcomes at a single institution. Breast J. 2020;26(11):2183–7.
doi: 10.1111/tbj.14088
pubmed: 33137841
Chirappapha P, Srichan P, Lertsithichai P, et al. Nipple-areola complex sensation after nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(4):e1716.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001716
pubmed: 29876167
pmcid: 5977969
Hammond JB, Kandi LA, Armstrong VL, et al. Long-term breast and nipple sensation after nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant reconstruction: Relevance to physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(9):2914–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.06.034
pubmed: 35915018
Mansour K, Calder P, Trotter D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes post prophylactic risk-reducing mastectomy: improved breast and psychosocial satisfaction yet poorer physical well-being. ANZ J Surg. 2023;93(1–2):251–6.
doi: 10.1111/ans.18277
pubmed: 36692298
Tait RC, Zoberi K, Ferguson M, et al. Persistent post-mastectomy pain: risk factors and current approaches to treatment. J Pain. 2018;19(12):1367–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.06.002
pubmed: 29966772
pmcid: 6530598
Enajat M, Smit JM, Rozen WM, et al. Aesthetic refinements and reoperative procedures following 370 consecutive DIEP and SIEA flap breast reconstructions: important considerations for patient consent. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34(3):306–12.
doi: 10.1007/s00266-009-9424-y
pubmed: 20424838
Malyon AD, Husein M, Weiler-Mithoff EM. How many procedures to make a breast? Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54(3):227–31.
doi: 10.1054/bjps.2000.3538
pubmed: 11254415
Pestana IA, Jones VM, Velazquez C. Breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy: technical modifications and their outcomes over time at an academic breast center. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;86(6S Suppl 5):S521-s525.
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002701
pubmed: 34100809
Smith JM, Boukovalas S, Chang EI, et al. Analysis of breast aesthetic revision procedures after unilateral abdominal-based free-flap breast reconstruction: a single-center experience with 1251 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(3):e4861.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004861
pubmed: 36910732
pmcid: 9995106
Wignarajah P, Malata CM, Benson JR. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1176915.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1176915
pubmed: 37448512
pmcid: 10338173
Sipilä RM, Haasio L, Meretoja TJ, Ripatti S, Estlander AM, Kalso EA. Does expecting more pain make it more intense? Factors associated with the first week pain trajectories after breast cancer surgery. Pain. 2017;158(5):922–30.
doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000859
pubmed: 28134654
pmcid: 5402716
Pontell ME, Saad N, Brown A, Rose M, Ashinoff R, Saad A. Single stage nipple-sparing mastectomy and reduction mastopexy in the ptotic breast. Plast Surg Int. 2018;2018:9205805.
pubmed: 29725545
pmcid: 5867609
Radovanovic Z, Ranisavljevic M, Radovanovic D, Vicko F, Ivkovic-Kapicl T, Solajic N. Nipple-sparing mastectomy with primary implant reconstruction: surgical and oncological outcome of 435 breast cancer patients. Breast Care (Basel). 2018;13(5):373–8.
doi: 10.1159/000489317
pubmed: 30498425
pmcid: 6257155
Nguyen CL, Tam SKM, Easwaralingam N, et al. Patterns of ischaemia and reperfusion in nipple-sparing mastectomy reconstruction with indocyanine green angiography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(11):4144–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.08.006
pubmed: 36167708