Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a rural population: A single-institution experience.

Background: The incidence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer (UBC) has continued to increase, despite an absent survival benefit except in populations at highest risk for developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). CPM rates may be higher in rural populations but causes remain unclear. A study performed at our institution previously found that 21.8 % of patients with UBC underwent CPM from 2000 to 2009. This study aimed to evaluate the CPM trend at a single institution serving a rural population and identify the CPM rate in average-risk patients. Methods: Retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomies for UBC at our institution from 2017 to 2021 was performed. Analysis utilized frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, chi-square, and independent sample t-tests. Results: A total of 438 patients were included, of whom 64.4 % underwent bilateral mastectomy for UBC (CPM). Patients who underwent CPM were significantly younger, underwent genetic testing, had germline pathogenic variants, had a family history of breast cancer, had smaller tumors, underwent reconstruction, and had more wound infections. Of CPM patients, 50.4 % had no identifiable factors for increased risk of developing CBC. Conclusions: The rate of CPM in a rural population at a single institution increased from 21.8 % to 64.4 % over two decades, with an average-risk CPM rate of 50.4 %. Those that undergo CPM are more likely to undergo reconstruction and have more wound infections. Identifying characteristics of patients undergoing CPM in a rural population and the increased associated risks allows for a better understanding of this trend to guide conversations with patients. Key message: This study demonstrates that the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancers performed at a single institution serving a largely rural population has nearly tripled over the last two decades, with half of these patients having no factors that increase the risk for developing contralateral breast cancers. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was significantly associated with smaller tumors, younger age, genetic testing, germline pathogenic variants, family history of breast cancer, breast reconstruction, and increased wound infections.

The Impact of Prior Breast Augmentation on Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy.

The risk of women developing breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty may be lower than the general population, with minimal current literature on breast reconstruction in this population. We sought to evaluate the impact of previous augmentation on postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Methods: Retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomies from 2017 to 2021 at our institution was performed. Analysis included frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and Fisher exact test. Results: Four hundred seventy patients were included, with average body mass index of 29.1 kg/m2, 96% identifying as White, and an average age at diagnosis of 59.3 years. Twenty (4.2%) patients had a prior breast augmentation. Reconstruction was performed in 80% of the previously augmented patients compared to 49.9% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.01). Reconstruction was alloplastic in 100% of augmented and 88.7% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.15). All reconstructed augmented patients underwent immediate reconstruction compared with 90.5% of nonaugmented patients (P = 0.37), and two-stage reconstruction was most common (75.0% versus 63.5%; P = 0.42). Of the previously augmented patients, 87.5% increased implant volume, 75% underwent same implant plane reconstruction, and 68.75% underwent same implant-type reconstruction as their augmentation. Conclusions: Previously augmented patients were more likely to undergo reconstruction after mastectomy at our institution. All reconstructed augmented patients underwent alloplastic reconstruction, with most performed immediately in staged fashion. Most patients favored silicone implants and maintained the same implant type and plane of reconstruction, with increased implant volume. Larger studies are required to further investigate these trends.

The Impact of Travel Distance and Income on Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy in a Rural Population.

Factors that influence breast reconstruction after mastectomy have been previously examined in national databases. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of patient travel distance and income on breast reconstruction after mastectomy in a rural population. Methods: Retrospective review of mastectomy patients from 2017 to 2021 was performed from our prospectively enrolled tumor registry. Analysis included frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, χ 2 analysis, independent sample t tests, and multivariable analysis. Results: In total, 462 patients were included. Median BMI was 27.6 kg/m2, 96.1% of patients were White, and median age at diagnosis was 60.0 years. Reconstruction rate was 52.6%, and median length of follow-up was 24.6 months. No significant difference was found in the distance traveled by patients who underwent reconstruction (16.6 versus 16.7 miles; P = 0.94). Rates of reconstruction in patients who traveled 0-10 miles, 11-30 miles, and over 30 miles did not differ significantly (P = 0.16). Median household income was significantly different in reconstructed and nonreconstructed patients ($55,316.00 versus $51,629.00; P = 0.047). Rates of reconstruction were significantly higher in patients with median household income greater than $65,000 (P = 0.024). This difference was not significant on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Travel distance did not significantly impact reconstruction rates after mastectomy, while household income did on univariable analysis. Studies at an institutional or regional level remain valuable, especially in populations that may not be accurately represented in larger database studies. Our findings highlight the importance of patient education, resource allocation, and multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer care, especially in the rural setting.