4.7 Article

Psychological reactions, quality of life, and body image after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for breast cancer: A prospective 1-year follow-up study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages 3943-3949

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9568

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To prospectively evaluate body image, sexuality, emotional reactions ( anxiety, depression), and quality of life in a sample of women having increased risk for breast cancer before and 6 months and 1 year after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM), and to compare preoperative expectations of the operation with postoperative reactions concerning the impact on six areas of the women's lives. Patients and Methods A total of 90 of 98 consecutive women who underwent BPM during October 1997 to December 2005 were included. Data were collected by self-administered questionnaires (eg, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Swedish Short Term-36 Health Survey, Body Image Scale, Sexual Activity Questionnaire) before the operation (n = 81), and 6 (n = 71) and 12 months (n = 65) after BPM. Results Anxiety decreased over time ( P < .0004). No corresponding difference was found for depression. No differences in health-related quality of life over time were found, with one exception. A substantial proportion of the women reported problems with body image 1 year after BPM ( eg, self consciousness, 48%; feeling less sexually attractive, 48%; and dissatisfaction with the scars, 44%). Sexual pleasure was rated lower 1-year post-BPM as compared with before operation (P = .005), but no differences over time in habit, discomfort, or activity were found. Conclusion No negative effects on anxiety, depression, and quality of life were found. Anxiety and social activities improved. Negative impact on sexuality and body image was reported.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available