Prognostic Factors for Distress After Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result for counselees at risk for hereditary cancer seems to be limited: only 10-20 % of counselees have psychological problems after testing positive for a known familial mutation. The objective of this study was to find prognostic factors that can predict which counselees are most likely to develop psychological problems after presymptomatic genetic testing. Counselees with a 50 % risk of BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome completed questionnaires at three time-points: after receiving a written invitation for a genetic counseling intake (T1), 2-3 days after receiving their DNA test result (T2), and 4-6 weeks later (T3). The psychological impact of the genetic test result was examined shortly and 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Subsequently, the influence of various potentially prognostic factors on psychological impact were examined in the whole group. Data from 165 counselees were analyzed. Counselees with an unfavorable outcome did not have more emotional distress, but showed significantly more cancer worries 4-6 weeks after learning their test result. Prognostic factors for cancer worries after genetic testing were pre-existing cancer worries, being single, a high risk perception of getting cancer, and an unfavorable test result. Emotional distress was best predicted by pre-existing cancer worries and pre-existing emotional distress. The psychological impact of an unfavorable genetic test result appears considerable if it is measured as "worries about cancer." Genetic counselors should provide additional guidance to counselees with many cancer worries, emotional distress, a high risk perception or a weak social network

Body image issues after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with breast reconstruction in healthy women at risk for hereditary breast cancer

The outcome of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with breast reconstruction (BPM-IBR) in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers can be potentially burdensome for body image and the intimate relationship. Therefore, in the current analysis the impact on body image, sexual and partner relationship satisfaction was prospectively investigated in women opting for BPM-IBR as well as cancer distress and general quality of life. Healthy women undergoing BPM-IBR completed questionnaires preoperatively (T0, n = 48), at 6 months (T1, n = 44) and after finishing breast reconstruction (median 21 months, range 12-35) (T2, n = 36). With multi-level regression analyses the course of outcome variables was investigated and a statistically significant change in body image and/or sexual and partner relationship satisfaction was predicted by baseline covariates. Body image significantly decreased at T1. At T2 sexual relationship satisfaction and body image tended to be lower compared to baseline. The overall partner relationship satisfaction did not significantly change. At T2, 37 % of the women reported that their breasts felt unpleasantly, 29 % was not satisfied with their breast appearance and 21 % felt embarrassed for their naked body. Most body image issues remained unchanged in 30 % of the women. A negative body image was predicted by high preoperative cancer distress. BPM-IBR was associated with adverse impact on body image in a substantial subgroup, but satisfaction with the overall sexual and partner relationship did not significantly change in time. The psychosocial impact of BPM-IBR in unaffected women should not be underestimated. Psychological support should ideally be integrated both before and after BPM-IBR

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

Background: Prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) both are associated with major risk reduction in women with high breast cancer risk. Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction is standard of care, but NSM is increasingly being performed. Preservation of the NAC in NSM may increase patient satisfaction. Therefore, we measured NAC sensitivity after NSM and compared patient satisfaction as well as body image after SSM with NSM. Methods: Women who underwent prophylactic bilateral SSM or NSM and immediate implant breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2012 were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Breast-Q reconstruction questionnaire, body image using Hopwood's body image scale (BIS), and satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC using a study-specific questionnaire. In the NSM group, NAC sensitivity was assessed using Semmes Weinstein monofilaments with a 5-point scale and compared with NAC sensitivity in a nonoperated control group. Results: The SSM group comprised 25 women (50 SSMs) and the NSM group 20 women (39 NSMs). Median follow-up was 65 months in the SSM group compared with 27 months in theNSMgroup (P<0.01). In univariable analyses, Breast-Qscores were favorable in the SSM group compared with theNSMgroup with trends for higher "satisfaction with breasts" (66.2 vs 56.6; P = 0.06) and "satisfaction with outcome" (76.1 vs 61.5; P = 0.09). Mean BIS score of 7.1/30 in the SSM group and 9.3/30 in theNSMgroup(P = 0.35). Adjusted for follow-up, there were no significant differences in Breast-Q scores, nor in BIS scores. Interestingly, satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC was similar after SSM and NSM. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity was lower in theNSMgroup(mean score, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.3) compared with the control group (mean score, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-4.9; P < 0.01). Conclusions: Breast-Q scores regarding satisfaction with breasts and overall outcome were in favor of the SSM group. Residual NAC sensitivity after NSM was low. This suggests that SSM followed by NAC reconstruction is a balanced alternative to NSM. We observed no significant differences in body image and NAC specific satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups