Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision-Making: The Partners' Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to rise despite no improvement in survival, an increased risk of surgical complications, and negative effects on quality of life. This study explored the experiences of the partners of women who undergo CPM. METHODS: This study was part of an investigation into the factors motivating women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer and low genetic risk to opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Participating women were asked for permission to invite their partners to take part in interviews. In-depth interviews with partners were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. A thematic analysis of the data was performed RESULTS: Of 35 partners, all men, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Most perceived their role to be strong and logical. Some hoped their wives would choose a bilateral mastectomy. All felt strongly that the final decision was up to their partners. The partners often framed the decision for CPM as one of life or death. Thus, any aesthetic effects were unimportant by comparison. The male partners had difficulty grasping the physical and emotional changes inherent in mastectomy, which made communicating about sexuality and intimacy very challenging for the couples. In the early recovery period, some noted the stress of managing home life. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of the male partners provide insight into how couples navigate complex treatment decision-making, both together and separately. There may be a benefit to including partners in pre- and post-surgical counseling to mitigate miscommunication regarding the expected oncologic and emotional outcomes related to CPM.

Patients' Reactions to Letters Communicating Collateral Findings of Pragmatic Clinical Trials: a National Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials are findings that may have implications for patients' health but were not generated to address a trial's primary research questions. It is uncertain how best to communicate these collateral findings to patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine how reactions to a letter communicating collateral findings relate to who signed the letter, the type of finding, or whether the letter specified that the finding arose from a pragmatic clinical trial. RESEARCH DESIGN: Web-based survey experiment using a between-subjects design in which respondents were randomly assigned within education strata to view and respond to 1 of 16 hypothetical scenarios. SUBJECTS: Adults recruited from an online panel constructed from a probability sample of US-based postal addresses. MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the action the respondent would take next (i.e., contact a doctor immediately or something else) and the respondent's emotional reactions (i.e., all positive, all negative, mixed, or none). RESULTS: A total of 4080 respondents had analyzable data. Although some effects were statistically significant (P < .05), none exceeded a prespecified threshold for policy relevance (15 or more percentage points). Ratings of letter clarity and level of understanding were lower for letters that included a description of the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Signatory and level of detail about collateral findings did not substantially affect people's intentions to take the recommended action of contacting their doctor. Deciding whether to include a description of the pragmatic clinical trial requires a trade-off between transparency and more difficulty understanding the contents of the letter.

Reframing the conversation about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Preparing women for postsurgical realities.

OBJECTIVE: Women with unilateral, early-stage breast cancer and low genetic risk are increasingly opting for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), a concerning trend because CPM offers few clinical benefits while increasing risks of surgical complications. Few qualitative studies have analyzed factors motivating this irreversible decision. Using qualitative methods, this study sought to understand women's decision making and the impact of CPM on self-confidence, sense of femininity, sexual intimacy, and peace of mind. METHODS: Women who had CPM within the last 10 years were recruited to participate in the study. We conducted a thematic analysis of the data. RESULTS: Forty-five women were interviewed. When making the decision for CPM, most had incomplete knowledge of potential negative outcomes. However, all believed CPM had more benefits than harms and would confer the most peace of mind and the fewest regrets should cancer return. They knew their contralateral breast cancer risk was low but were not persuaded by statistics. They wanted to do everything possible to reduce their risk of another breast cancer, even by a minimal amount, but most reported paying an unexpectedly high price for this small reduction in risk. Nevertheless, 41 of 45 reported that they would make the same decision again. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight an opportunity for physicians to reframe the conversation to focus on the patient experience of the tradeoffs of CPM rather than statistical odds of future cancers. Our findings suggest that more data may not dissuade women from CPM but may better prepare them for its outcomes.

Beliefs and perceptions of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who refused conventional treatment in favor of alternative therapies.

PURPOSE: Although breast cancer is a highly treatable disease, some women reject conventional treatment opting for unproven "alternative therapy" that may contribute to poor health outcomes. This study sought to understand why some women make this decision and to identify messages that might lead to greater acceptance of evidence-based treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study explored treatment decision making through in-depth interviews with 60 breast cancer patients identified by their treating oncologists. Thirty refused some or all conventional treatment, opting for alternative therapies, whereas 30 accepted both conventional and alternative treatments. All completed the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Rotter Locus of Control scale. RESULTS: Negative first experiences with "uncaring, insensitive, and unnecessarily harsh" oncologists, fear of side effects, and belief in the efficacy of alternative therapies were key factors in the decision to reject potentially life-prolonging conventional therapy. Refusers differed from controls in their perceptions of the value of conventional treatment, believing that chemotherapy and radiotherapy were riskier (p < .0073) and less beneficial (p < .0001) than did controls. Controls perceived alternative medicine alone as riskier than did refusers because its value for treating cancer is unproven (p < .0001). Refusers believed they could heal themselves naturally from cancer with simple holistic methods like raw fruits, vegetables, and supplements. CONCLUSION: According to interviewees, a compassionate approach to cancer care plus physicians who acknowledge their fears, communicate hope, educate them about their options, and allow them time to come to terms with their diagnosis before starting treatment might have led them to better treatment choices.