INTRODUCTION
According to the National Cancer Institute (INCA) database, breast cancer is the
most common type of cancer among women in the world and in Brazil, after
non-melanoma skin cancer. Breast cancer accounts for about 25% of the new cancer
cases each year.
Data from the international literature are similar to those of our country, which
demonstrate that mortality rates increase with age. According to data from the
American Cancer Society, between 2002 and 2006, 95% of new cases and 97% of
deaths due to breast cancer occurred in women aged 40 years or older1. During the same year, the mean age at
diagnosis was 61 years. As for ethnicity, white women were seen to be at higher
risk of developing breast cancer than African-American women2.
Through identifying groups at risk of developing cancer and tracing the genetic
profile of a particular tumor, we can classify the cancer and outline different
treatment strategies. Thus, breast cancer can be divided into subtypes based
on
the molecular characteristics of its cells. Each of these subtypes has different
clinical properties, clinical behavior, and survival characteristics1,3.
The main types of breast cancer are ductal carcinoma in situ,
invasive ductal carcinoma, and invasive lobular carcinoma. In situ ductal
carcinoma is an early stage breast cancer, is unable to metastasize in its early
stages. Invasive ductal carcinoma, is the most common type of breast cancer and
has the capacity to metastasize. Invasive lobular carcinoma is the second most
common type of breast cancer and is related to the risk of developing cancer
in
other breast and ovary-associated tissues, in addition to posing a high risk
of
metastasis.
However, it is important to emphasize that there are certain types of breast
lesions that can predispose a patient to cancer, such as lobular carcinoma
in situ or lobular neoplasm, atypical ductal hyperplasia,
and atypical lobular hyperplasia.
As a result of these genetic disorders, one can infer the main signs and symptoms
of breast cancer, which include fixed nodules or lumps of hardened and painless
consistency, a reddish or retracted appearance of the skin, changes in the
nipple, small nodules in the axillary region or neck, and papillary discharge.
The early detection of breast cancer exponentially increases the chances of
successful treatment outcomes. Once the tumor is diagnosed in its early stages,
either during the process of tumorigenesis or at the very initial stage, a
curative treatment is possible.
To foster the need and importance of prevention, the month of October was elected
as the epicenter for the intensification of a campaign against breast cancer.
October Rosa is a campaign to raise awareness among the general population and
especially women about the importance of breast cancer prevention and its early
diagnosis.
In a historical moment, the movement was initiated in 1990 as Race for the Cure,
which was held in New York and has now been held continually in the city. The
name of the movement indicates towards the color of the tie that symbolizes,
globally, the fight against breast cancer and stimulates the participation of
companies, entities, and the world population.
Despite the process of globalization, which allows media coverage throughout the
world and enables statistical measurements with respect to the incidence rates
of breast cancer by the Ministry of Health, a significant number of people still
lack comprehensive knowledge about this subject. For this, it is imperative to
conduct research to determine the degree of knowledge among medical
students.
As they constitute the class of future professionals and opinion-formers, the
importance of specific knowledge is emphasized, not only with regard to the
prevention and identification of breast cancer, but also with respect to
reception, counseling, and referral to different medical specialists who are
qualified to provide different levels of attention and treatment in
correspondence with the type and stage of tumor, to improve survival rates and
other related health indicators.
In view of the aspects mentioned above, it is essential to have prevention and
early identification measures for breast cancer. Such measures include screening
exams, which can detect the tumor before the appearance of symptoms or
perception by the patient, especially mammography, which in some cases can be
complemented with ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging of the
breasts.
In addition, the information and execution of breast self-examinations in the
knowledge of the body and in the detection of changes are extremely important.
In Brazil, the Ministry of Health’s recommendation is to perform screening
mammography (when there are no signs or symptoms) in women aged 50 to 69 years,
every two years, according to the INCA database.
Regarding treatments, it is worth emphasizing the importance of a qualified
professional for each stage of the disease. In this context, the specialists
may
be involved in multidisciplinary fields, for example mastologists, oncologists,
radiotherapists, psychologists, physiotherapists, dentists, plastic surgeons,
geneticists, and others.
The standard treatment for early stage breast cancer is surgery, wherein either
specific breast segments are removed or radical mastectomy is performed. The
success of the treatment is determined based on the psychological evaluation
of
the patient, which includes immediate breast reconstruction with social
reintegration of the patient.
In a systematic review of the literature4,
the rate of breast reconstruction was shown to be highly variable and related
to
doubts about adjuvant therapy, i.e. if the patient can undergo chemotherapy or
radiotherapy after surgery and the indication and beliefs of the attending
physician about the procedure.
Breast reconstruction involves multiple procedures that are performed in a number
of stages, which can either be performed simultaneously with mastectomy or
postponed until the end of cancer treatment. Among the techniques that have been
described for breast reconstruction, we highlight the use of autologous tissues
and implants. Of the autologous tissues, one procedure involves the use of
myocutaneous flaps, where tissues from areas adjacent to where mastectomy has
been performed are transferred. These areas may include the skin and
subcutaneous cellular tissue and muscles, which are most commonly used, and the
dorsal large muscle flap and the transverse rectus abdominis muscle.
Implant reconstructions can be performed in two stages, with the aid of
expanders, when there is a need for a skin “gain” after radical non-skin sparing
mastectomies, followed by replacement of the expander with silicone implants
in
a second surgery.
Despite efforts to popularize preventive measures through the media, much of the
population remains unclear about many aspects of the disease and the medical
specialties to go to for appropriate treatment. In order to effectively educate
the world population about this disease, it is first necessary to train health
professionals, mainly medical students and general practitioners, so that they
can correctly refer to the competent medical specialties at each stage of
treatment. This is the underlying motivation for the present study.
OBJECTIVE
The overall objective was to assess medical students’ perceptions of breast
cancer and breast reconstruction. Among the specific objectives, we aimed to
evaluate the degree of knowledge about the importance of breast examinations,
the recognition of risk factors for breast cancer, the perception about the
indication of methods for diagnosing and treating breast cancer, and their
applicability. We also proposed measures to guide the specialists involved in
breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS
This is a cross-sectional pilot study composed of fifth and sixth year students
from our private higher education medical institution in Brasília - DF, held
in
May 2016. One hundred and twenty volunteers were enrolled in the study, from
a
total of 160 students, 40 of whom were excluded from the study due to a lack
of
response.
The sample size to estimate the proportion of a given characteristic in a
population was based on two parameters: the margin of error and confidence
level. For the present study, the margin of error and the confidence level were
set at 5% and 95%, respectively.
For these parameters, the sample size required for the study, from a total of 160
students who were enrolled in the boarding school (5th and
6th year) of the research institution was 114 students, which was
calculated by the formula (Figure 1):
Figure 2 - Graph showing the possibility of surgical reconstruction at the
same time as mastectomy.
Figure 2 - Graph showing the possibility of surgical reconstruction at the
same time as mastectomy.
Where:
N = the sample size to be calculated
N = Total size (total number of students enrolled in grades 5 and 6)
Z = was the deviation from the mean value, accepted to reach the desired
confidence level. As a function of the ideal confidence level (95%), the
value was determined by the Gauss probability distribution form, with Z
= 1.96.
E = was the maximum allowed error margin, 5%.
P = was the proportion that we expected to find in the population. In
this study, since there is no expected proportion, it was assumed to be
p = 50%, and consequently, (1-p) = 50%.
The instrument used in this study was the self-administered questionnaire, with
questions that were elaborated by the researchers. It consisted of the following
themes:
Knowledge of breast self-examinations;
Risk factors for breast cancer;
Types of complementary diagnostic tests;
Indication of complementary examinations by age/predisposition;
Medical specialties involved in this area, both in follow-up and
treatment;
Types of treatments;
Professionals responsible for performing breast reconstruction.
These questionnaires were applied anonymously, and participants signed informed
consent.
The questionnaire was applied within the classrooms of the institution, for the
above mentioned students of the medical course, because in the case of personal
questions, this application method increased the chances of the information
being anonymous and valid.
RESULTS
Of the 120 students interviewed in the fifth and sixth years, 58 (48.3%) were
women and 62 (51.3%) were men.
The majority of the students 95 (79.16%) were between the ages of 22 and 28
years. Ninety-eight (81.66%) were unmarried, 22 (18.3%) were married, and 17
(14.16%) had previously completed an advanced degree.
Of the total number of students interviewed, 40 (33.33%) stated that they
performed breast self-examinations and 80 (66.66%) denied it. Of those who
reported self-examinations of the breasts, 36 (90%) were women. Among the
students who affirmed to perform breast self-examinations, 21 (52.5%) performed
monthly examinations, 10 (25%) performed annual examinations, eight (20%)
performed weekly examinations, and one (2.5%) performed daily examinations.
Among those who refused to perform breast self-examinations (n = 80), 16 (20%)
did not consider them to be important and 64 (80%) claimed other reasons.
In the questionnaire about the significance of breast self-examinations, the
following results were obtained: 74 (61.66%) responded for prevention/diagnosis
of breast cancer, 28 (23.33%) responded for knowledge of one’s own body, six
(5%) stated that it is not important, and 12 (10%) responded that it has another
meaning. Subsequently, the clinical breast examination questionnaire was
administered, and of the 120 interviewees, 53 (44.16%) had already undergone
clinical breast examinations, of whom 47 (88.67%) were women, 34 (64.15%)
performed examinations at annually, eight (15.09%) semiannually, three (5.66%)
performed once per two years, and eight (15.09%) performed once per three
years.
Among these students, for 38 (71.60%) the exams were performed by a gynecologist,
for eight (15.09) by a general practitioner, for five (9.43%) by a mastologist,
for one (1.88%) by a plastic surgeon, and for one (1.88%) by another specialist.
Sixty-seven students (55.83%) denied having been examined.
Due to the incidence of breast cancer, volunteers were questioned whether they
could have breast cancer at some time in their lives, and 109 (90.83%) answered
yes and 11 (9.16%) denied the possibility. In the analysis of the risk factors
related to breast cancer, 102 (85%) students affirmed a family history in
first-degree relatives, life habits, advanced age, and nulliparity; 11 (9.16%)
students admitted only to having a family history in first-degree relatives,
three (2.5%) admitted to the life habits category, one (0.83%) to advanced age,
and three (2.5%) to other factors.
On the other hand, we questioned if breast cancer had a cure and unanimously
(100%), the answer was yes. Next, we questioned a good method to discover breast
cancer early, while the cancer was very small, and the following responses were
obtained: 93 (77.5%) chose mammography, 13 (10.83%) self -examination, 11
(9.16%) ultrasonography, and three (2.5%) clinical examination. The best age
for
mammography for an examination in patients who were at increased risk for breast
cancer, with a family history in first-degree relatives, was enquired about and
78 (65%) students answered from the age of 35, 31 (25.83%) answered before the
age of 35, and 11 (9.16%) answered over 40 years.
In a questionnaire on the medical specialty that was better prepared to follow
and treat patients with breast cancer, 65 (54.16%) students said mastology, 43
(35.83%) said oncology, eight (6.66%) said plastic surgery, three (2.5%) said
gynecology, and one (0.83%) said other specialties. For the interviewees, the
best perceived treatment for breast cancer was asked for, and 67 (55.84%) stated
mastectomy, 22 (18.33%) quadrantectomy, 14 (11.66%) chemotherapy and
radiotherapy, and 17 (14.16%) said none of the above.
In order to evaluate the degree of knowledge of diagnosis and treatment, we
questioned whether there is a possibility of breast reconstruction after the
mastectomy, and the answer was unanimously yes (100% of the respondents). For
better characterization, we asked if the reconstruction could be performed at
the same time as the mastectomy, and 69 (57.5%) students scored yes and 51
(42.5%) denied the possibility (Figure 2).
In the surgical part, we asked whether they were aware of any breast
reconstruction technique, and 49 (40.83%) said yes and 71 (59.16%) said no
(Figure 3).
Figure 2 - Graph showing the possibility of surgical reconstruction at the
same time as mastectomy.
Figure 2 - Graph showing the possibility of surgical reconstruction at the
same time as mastectomy.
Figure 3 - Graph showing knowledge of breast reconstruction
techniques.
Figure 3 - Graph showing knowledge of breast reconstruction
techniques.
With regards to referral to medical specialists who are better prepared to follow
and perform breast reconstruction, 93 (77.5%) students chose plastic surgery
and
26 (21.66%) chose mastology (Figure 4). We
asked whether there is a possibility of breast reconstruction in patients who
are supposed to undergo radiotherapy after surgery (adjuvant radiotherapy) and
66 (55%) students answered yes, 51 (42.5%) answered no, and three (2.5%) could
not answer. In a more objective question, we asked whether this possibility
exists in patients with silicone implants, and 59 (49.16%) answered yes, three
(2.5%) answered no, and 58 (48.33%) said that they did not know.
Figure 4 - Graph showing the perceived specialists more prepared to carry
out breast reconstruction.
Figure 4 - Graph showing the perceived specialists more prepared to carry
out breast reconstruction.
Figure 5 - Graph showing the possibility of breast reconstruction in
patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy.
Figure 5 - Graph showing the possibility of breast reconstruction in
patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy.
We evaluated whether breast reconstruction would have a positive impact on the
quality of life of women who underwent mastectomy, and unanimously (100%), the
respondents answered yes. Therefore, they were asked if they knew someone who
had breast reconstruction, and 23 (19.16%) said yes and 97 (80.83%) said no.
In
the group of people who stated that they knew someone who had undergone breast
reconstruction, 17 (73.91%) reported that it had been performed by a plastic
surgeon, three (13.04%) reported by mastologist, and three (13.04%) jointly by
a
mastologist and plastic surgeon.
DISCUSSION
The present study is one of the pioneering works in national literature that
evaluates the perception of health professionals, especially of medical
students.
As to the level of knowledge of medical students about the importance of breast
examination, more than half (66.66%) of the respondents did not undergo breast
self-examinations, and 20% did not consider them important. The literature shows
the importance of this easy and inexpensive exam. It can be performed by a
trained doctor or nurse and presents 57-83% sensitivity among women between 50
and 59 years of age and around 71% among those who are between 40 and 49,
according to data from INCA, 2016.
Regarding the recognition of risk factors for breast cancer, most students knew
that they are important and should be evaluated along with the clinical history
of their patients.
Regarding the perception about the indication of diagnostic and treatment methods
for breast cancer and their applicability, the students recognized the
importance of mammography as a method of choice in the screening, prevention,
and diagnosis of breast cancer, as well as the age and periodicity of the
examination. About 57% of the students recognized the possibility of immediate
breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Concerning breast reconstruction
techniques, only 49 (40.83%) students had already heard about the subject, which
may be the focus of the measures of the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery,
in
order to guide these techniques and the specialists who are most prepared to
carry them out.
The students recognized that the most suitable medical specialty to accompany and
perform breast reconstruction is plastic surgery (77.5%) against mastology
(21.66%). However, we can assume that mastology has been gaining interest in
the
field of breast reconstruction, especially in the academic environment, due to
the high percentage of responses that indicated that such specialists would be
better prepared than plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction.
All students acknowledged breast reconstruction as an option after mastectomy,
but a large part (42.5%) believed that it is not possible to perform the
mastectomy simultaneously, and more than half (59.16%) of the interviewees were
unaware of breast reconstruction techniques. In addition, many (42.5%) were
unaware of the possibility of post-reconstruction radiotherapy, including
reconstructions with silicone prostheses.
A study by Maluf et al.5 revealed that 68%
of the patients submitted to immediate reconstruction were very satisfied with
the aesthetic result of the surgery. Conversely in the late reconstruction
group, a great degree of psychological suffering and relegation of the
psychological functions were seen due to low self-esteem.
It is also known that the complete treatment of patients with breast
reconstruction contributes to an improved quality of life, the preservation of
self-image, increases the sense of femininity, improves sexual relationships,
and provides a less traumatic rehabilitation process in these women6. Therefore, it is important that
undergraduates understand the subject in order to properly guide patients in
their search for specialists who can offer appropriate treatment.
CONCLUSION
Students in the fifth and sixth year of medical school in the Federal District
showed a good perception of breast cancer, regarding physical and imaging exams,
risk factors, and therapeutic possibilities. However, these students need to
be
more educated and better guidance is required with respect to questions
regarding breast reconstruction after mastectomy and the specialties involved,
so that they can effectively guide their future patients and refer them to the
appropriate professionals who have a positive perception about the possibilities
of treatment that may improve the quality of life of patients with breast
cancer.
Additional studies are needed, but this work provides a basis to encourage the
Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery with informative measures and medical
students with information about the important role of plastic surgery in breast
reconstruction.
COLLABORATIONS
LDPB
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analyses; final
approval of the manuscript; conception and design of the study;
completion of surgeries and/or experiments; writing the manuscript
or critical review of its contents.
|
DBP
|
Final approval of the manuscript.
|
VSD
|
Completion of surgeries and/or experiments.
|
JRN
|
Conception and design of the study; completion of surgeries and/or
experiments; writing the manuscript or critical review of its
contents.
|
GCS
|
Writing the manuscript or critical review of its contents.
|
DASS
|
Writing the manuscript or critical review of its contents.
|
REFERENCES
1. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2009-2010
[acesso 2018 Maio 25]. Disponível em: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2009-2010.pdf
2. Allred DC. Assessment of Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Breast
Cancer by Immunohistochemistry ER. Breast, p. 2005- 2006, 2005.
3. Fukutomi T, Akashi-Tanaka S. Prognostic and predictive factors in
the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer.
2002;9(2):95-9.
4. Brennan ME, Spillane AJ Uptake and predictors of post-mastectomy
reconstruction in women with breast malignancy--systematic review. Eur J Surg
Oncol. 2013;39(6):527-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.02.021
5. Maluf MFM, Jo Mori L, Barros ACSD. O impacto psicológico do câncer
de mama. Rev Bras Cancerol. 2005;51(2):149-54.
6. Almeida RA. Impacto da mastectomia na vida da mulher. Rev SBPH.
2006;9(2):99-113.
1. Hospital Daher Lago Sul, Brasília, DF,
Brazil.
Corresponding author: Diogo Borges
Pedroso
SEP/ Sul, 709/909, Centro Médico Julio Adnet, Clínica 20
Brasília, DF, Brazil Zip Code 70390-095
E-mail: dpedroso@gmail.com
Article received: November 20, 2016.
Article accepted: May 17, 2018.
Conflicts of interest: none.