Dutch normative data of the sexual distress scale and the body image scale.

PURPOSE: Sexual health is an important contributing factor for health-related quality of life, but research in this domain is scarce. Moreover, normative data are needed to interpret patient-reported outcome measures on sexual health. The aim of this study was to collect and describe normative scores of the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and the Body Image Scale (BIS) from the Dutch population and assess the effect of important demographic and clinical variables on the outcome. As the FSDS is also validated in men, we refer to it as SDS. METHOD: Dutch respondents completed the SDS and BIS between May and August 2022. Sexual distress was defined as a SDS score > 15. Descriptive statistics were calculated to present normative data per age group per gender after post-stratification weighting was applied. Multiple logistic and linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the effect of age, gender, education, relationship status, history of cancer and (psychological) comorbidities on SDS and BIS. RESULTS: For the SDS 768 respondents were included with a weighted mean score of 14.41 (SD 10.98). Being female (OR 1.77, 95% CI [1.32; 2.39]), having a low educational level (OR 2.02, CI [1.37; 2.39]) and psychological comorbidities (OR: 4.86, 95% CI [2.17; 10.88]) were associated with sexual distress. For the BIS, 696 respondents were included. Female gender (ß: 2.63, 95% CI [2.13; 3.13]), psychological comorbidities (ß: 2.45, 95% CI [1.43; 3.47]), higher age (ß: -0.07, 95% CI [-0.09; -0.05]), and a high educational level (ß:-1.21, CI: -1.79 to -0.64) were associated with the non-disease related questions of the Body Image Scale. CONCLUSION: This study provides age- and gender-dependent normative values for the SDS and the non-disease related questions of the BIS. Sexual distress and body image are influenced by gender, education level, relationship status and psychological comorbidities. Moreover, age is positively associated with Body Image.

Quality of Life and Complications after Nipple- versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy followed by Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has emerged as an alternative procedure for skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Because oncologic safety appears similar, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication risks may guide decision-making in individual patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to compare PROs and complication rates after NSM and SSM. METHODS: A systematic literature review evaluating NSM versus SSM was performed using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. Primary outcomes were PROs and complications. Studies that evaluated BREAST-Q scores were used to perform meta-analyses on five BREAST-Q domains. RESULTS: Thirteen comparative studies including 3895 patients were selected from 1202 articles found. Meta-analyses of the BREAST-Q domains showed a significant mean difference of 7.64 in the Sexual Well-being domain ( P = 0.01) and 4.71 in the Psychosocial Well-being domain ( P = 0.03), both in favor of NSM. Using the specifically designed questionnaires, no differences in overall satisfaction scores were found. There were no differences in overall complication rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction scores were high after both NSM and SSM; however, NSM led to a higher sexual and psychosocial well-being. No differences in complication rates were found. In combination with other factors, such as oncologic treatments, complication risk profile, and fear of cancer recurrence, the decision for NSM or SSM has to be made on an individual basis and only if NSM is considered to be oncologically safe.