Resultado estético e segurança oncológica da mastectomia poupadora do mamilo
Palavras-chave:
neoplasias da mama, estética, mastectomia subcutânea, resultado do tratamentoResumo
Introdução: A Mastectomia Poupadora do Mamilo (MPM)tem sido realizada em tratamentos de câncer de mama e em mulheres em situação de risco. A cirurgia traz melhores resultados estéticos; todavia, a sua segurança oncológica ainda é controversa. Objetivo: Avaliar as complicações cirúrgicas, a segurança oncológica e a satisfação estética de pacientes com câncer de mama submetendose à MPM com reconstrução imediata da mama operadas pela mesma equipe médica em um centro de câncer de mama no Brasil. Método: De 2004 a 2011, um questionário de satisfação estética foi administrado a mulheres submetidas à MPM seguida de reconstrução imediata de mama 30 ou 60 dias após a cirurgia. Foram analisadas a satisfação estética, as taxas de complicações e a segurança oncológica. Resultados: Trinta e seis pacientes com câncer que se submeteram a MPMs seguidas de reconstrução imediata responderam ao questionário. A sua maioria considerou os resultados bons (51%) ou ótimos (43%) e todos os pacientes a recomendarão como tratamento terapêutico a outras mulheres com câncer de mama. Apenas uma paciente apresentou infecção e perda do implante mamário, e as taxas de recorrência foram satisfatórias (5,5%). Conclusão: Nossas descobertas mostraram baixa taxa de complicação, segurança oncológica e bom resultado estético relacionado à MPM com reconstrução imediata em pacientes de um centro de câncer de mama no Brasil. Apesar das limitações do nosso estudo, nós apoiamos o uso da MPM com reconstrução imediata para um melhor resultado estético com segurança oncológica.
Downloads
Referências
Dull B, Conant L, Myckaty T, Tenenbaum M, Cyr A, Margenthaler JA. Nipple-sparing mastectomies: Clinical outcomes from a single academic institution. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6(5):737-42. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1208
Smith BL, Tang R, Rai U, Plichta JK, Colwell AS, Gadd MA, et al. Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women with Breast Cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(3):361-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.06.013
Hieken TJ, Boolbol SK, Dietz JR. Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Indications, Contraindications, Risks, Benefits, and Techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3138-44. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5370-5
Gerber B, Krause A, Dieterich M, Kundt G, Reimer T. The oncological safety of skin sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple–areola complex and autologous reconstruction: an extended follow-up study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;249(3):461-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a044f
Sakurai T, Zhang N, Suzuma T, Umemura T, Yoshimura G, Sakurai T, et al. Long-term follow-up of nipple-sparing mastectomy without radiotherapy: a single center study at a Japanese institution. Med Oncol. 2013;30(1):481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-013-0481-3
De La Cruz L, Moody AM, Tappy EE, Blankenship AS, Hecht EM. Overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence and nippleareolar recurrence in the setting of nipple-sparing mastectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3241-9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1
Razdan SN, Patel V, Jewell S, McCarthy CM. Quality of life among patients after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1409-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1181-6
Howard MA, Sisco M, Yao K, Winchester DJ, Barrera E, Warner J, et al. Patient satisfaction with nipple-sparing mastectomy: A prospective study of patient reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(4):416-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24364
Bailey CR, Ogbuagu O, Baltodano PA, Simjee UF, Manahan MA, Cooney DS, et al. Quality-of-Life Outcomes Improve with Nipple- Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):219-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003505
Rojas K, Onstad M, Raker C, Clark MA, Stuckey A, Gass J. The impact of mastectomy type on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), satisfaction with appearance, and the reconstructed breast’s role in intimacy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;163(2):273-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4174-z
Salhab M, Sarakbi WA, Joseph A, Sheards S, Travers J, Mokbel K. Skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction: patient satisfaction and clinical outcome. Int J Clin Oncol. 2006;11(1):51-4.
Pesce C, Liederbach E, Wang C, Lapin B, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy provides no survival benefit in young women with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3231-9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3956-3
Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry WT, Golshan M. Growing Use of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Despite no Improvement in Long-term Survival for Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):581-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001698
Wright FC, Look Hong NJ, Quan ML, Beyfuss K, Temple S, Covelli A, et al. Indications for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Consensus Statement Using Modified Delphi Methodology. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):271-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002309
Frost MH, Slezak JM, Tran NV, Williams CI, Johnson JL, Woods JE, et al. Satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the significance of mastectomy type, reconstructive complications, and body appearance. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7849-56. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.09.233
Geiger AM, West CN, Nekhlyudov L, Herrinton LJ, Liu IL, Altschuler A, et al. Contentment with quality of life among breast cancer survivors with and without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1350-6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.01.9901
Soran A, Ibrahim A, Kanbour M, McGuire K, Balci FL, Polat AK, et al. Decision making and factors influencing long-term satisfaction with prophylactic mastectomy in women with breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015;38(2):179-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e318292f8a7
Longo B, Laporta R, Sorotos M, Pagnoni M, Gentilucci M, Santaneli di Pompeo F. Total breast reconstruction using autologous fat grafting following nipple-sparing mastectomy in irradiated and non-irradiated patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(6):1101-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0406-3
Spear SL, Shuck J, Hannan L, Albino F, Patel KM. Evaluating long-term outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction in the irradiated breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(5):605e-14e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000098
Reefy S, Patani N, Anderson A, Burgoyne G, Osman H, Mokbel K. Oncological outcome and patient satisfaction with skinsparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: a prospective observational study. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:171. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2407-10-171
Manning AT, Sacchini VS. Conservative mastectomies for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience. Gland Surg. 2016;5(1):55- 62. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.10.02
Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K. The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(4):328-38. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328
Orzalesi L, Casella D, Santi C, Cecconi L, Murgo R, Rinaldi S, et al. Nipple sparing mastectomy: Surgical and oncological outcomes from a national multicentric registry with 913 patients (1006 cases) over a six year period. Breast. 2016;25:75- 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.10.010
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2019 Janaina Ferreira Viegas, Martina Lichtenfels, Alessandra Borba Anton de Souza, Betina Vollbrecht, Francisco Laitano Neto, Felipe Pereira Zerwes, Antônio Luiz Frasson
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
