Impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on survival outcomes in patients with unilateral breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To synthesize contemporary evidence of the impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) on survival outcomes in patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases were searched for observational studies published up to November 15, 2023. Random-effects model was used to obtain pooled effect estimates that were reported as hazards ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), recurrence free survival (RFS) and risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Most studies had a retrospective design. CPM was associated with significant improvement of OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.85), BCCS (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.90), and RFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.86) and significantly reduced risk of CBC (HR 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.09) in patients with UBC. No evidence of publication bias was detected. Conclusion: Our results provide strong evidence supporting the positive impact of CPM on survival outcomes in patients with UBC. Further research and long-term follow-up studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients.

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases annually are diagnosed in young women, and this continues to be the leading cause of death in women age 20 to 49. Young, premenopausal breast cancer patients present with more advanced stages and with a higher proportion of aggressive subtypes such as triple negative and HER2-enriched tumors. Recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age threshold to initiate screening mammograms to age 40 to aid in earlier detection. Young age at diagnosis increases the likelihood for a pathogenic mutation, and genetic testing is recommended for all patients age 50 and younger. This population is often underrepresented in landmark clinical trials, and data is extrapolated for the treatment of young women with breast cancer. Despite there being no survival benefit to more extensive surgical treatments, such as mastectomy or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, many patients opt against breast conservation. Young patients with breast cancer face issues related to treatment toxicities, potential overtreatment of their disease, mental health, sexual health, and fertility preservation. This unique population requires a multidisciplinary care team of physicians, surgeons, genetic counselors, fertility specialists, mental health professionals, physical therapists, and dieticians to provide individualized, comprehensive care. Our aim is to (1) provide a narrative review of retrospective studies, relevant society guidelines, and clinical trials focused on the contemporary treatment and management of YBC patients and (2) discuss important nuances in their care as a guide for members of their multidisciplinary treatment team.

Trends of incidence and mortality in metaplastic breast cancer and the effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Metaplastic breast cancer (MBC) is considered rare and aggressive. We examined the epidemiology of and prognostic factors for MBC and investigated the effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), because neither had been thoroughly examined previously. METHODS: We obtained data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18(2000-2018) for epidemiological and survival analysis. RESULTS: The age-adjusted incidence per 100,000 persons of MBC increased significantly from 0.12 to 0.35 [annual percent change (APC):2.95%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73-4.19]. The incidence-based mortality increased from 0.01 to 0.12 (APC: 5.01%, 95% CI: 2.50-7.58). The incidence of MBC patients who underwent CPM significantly increased from 0.003 to 0.039 with an APC of 10.96% (95%CI, 7.26-14.78). Older patients and those with higher T classification were less likely to receive CPM. The multivariate Cox model showed that CPM was not an independent predictor of good prognosis for both overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (pre-propensity score matching (PSM): OS: P = 0.331; BCSS: P = 0.462. post-PSM: OS: P = 0.916; BCSS: P = 0.967). Subgroup analysis showed that CPM still did not provide a survival benefit to any risk groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, we demonstrated that the incidence and incidence-based mortality of MBC have increased over the past decades. Although the number of MBC patients who underwent CPM has significantly increased recently, CPM did not confer a survival benefit compared with unilateral mastectomy, indicating that the decision to undergo CPM should be considered carefully.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Weighing the risks of delayed chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with unilateral breast cancer opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of therapeutic mastectomy (immediate CPM) or following completion of adjuvant therapy. Studies show that immediate CPM increases the risk of surgical complications related to unilateral mastectomy (UM) alone, which may lead to delays in adjuvant therapy initiation. However, it is unclear if these complications cause clinically significant delays in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with breast cancer who underwent immediate CPM versus UM alone at Columbia University Medical Center from January 2000 to December 2020. Patient demographic and oncologic characteristics; complications; and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or hormonal therapy relative to therapeutic mastectomy were collected. RESULTS: In this study, 239 UM alone patients were propensity score matched to 239 immediate CPM patients. No significant difference in complication rates was found between the index and contralateral breasts in CPM patients. A similar percentage of CPM and UM patients experienced postoperative complications (19% vs. 17%, p = 0.64). No significant difference in time to adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy was found between CPM patients with complications and all CPM patients or all UM patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of clear guidance for clinical decision-making regarding timing of CPM relative to adjuvant therapy. Our study suggests that immediate CPM does not significantly increase the risks of postoperative complications or complication-related delays in the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonal therapy. This information may help patients and providers to plan, select, and schedule breast cancer treatment options.

Patient-driven decisions and perceptions of the 'safest possible choice': insights from patient-provider conversations about how some breast cancer patients choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Observe patient-clinician communication to gain insight about the reasons underlying the choice of patients with unilateral breast cancer to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), despite lack of survival benefit, risk of harms, and cautions expressed by surgical guidelines and clinicians. METHODS & MEASURES: WORDS is a prospective study that explored patient-clinician communication and patient decision making. Participants recorded clinical visits through a downloadable mobile application. We analyzed 44 recordings from 22 patients: 9 who chose CPM, 8 who considered CPM but decided against it, and 5 who never considered CPM. We used abductive analysis combined with constructivist grounded theory methods. RESULTS: Decisions to undergo CPM are patient-driven and motivated by perceptions that CPM is the most aggressive, and therefore safest, treatment option available. These decisions are shaped not primarily by the content of conversations with clinicians, but by the history of cancer in patients' families, their own first-hand experiences with cancers among loved ones, fear for their children, and anxiety about cancer recurrence. CONCLUSION: The perception that CPM is the safest, most aggressive option strongly influences patients, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Future efforts to address high CPM rates should focus on patient-driven decision making and cancer-related fears.

Trends in utilization of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among different age, racial and ethnic groups.

Background: The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased over the last two decades with variations in the frequency of reconstruction. The objective of this cohort study is to elucidate the use of CPM and reconstruction among underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and women over 65 years. Methods: Women over 18 years, diagnosed with stages I to III breast cancer who underwent mastectomy from 2004-2017 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and grouped into CPM vs. non-CPM. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the associations between CPM and reconstruction with sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results: A total of 571,649 patients were identified. Patients who underwent CPM were under 50 years (45.9%), White (88.4%) and with private insurance (73.5%). On multivariable analysis, women over 65 years [odds ratio (OR): 0.18, P<0.001], non-White (Black, OR: 0.56, P<0.001) and without private insurance (uninsured, OR: 0.50, P<0.001) had decreased odds of CPM. Women over 65 years (OR: 0.11, P<0.001), non-White (Asian/Pacific Islander, OR: 0.58, P<0.001) and without private insurance (Medicaid, OR: 0.41, P<0.001) had decreased odds of reconstruction. Conclusions: Non-White women and women over the age of 65 years were less likely to have CPM or reconstruction than their White counterparts from 2004 to 2017. Research is needed to understand factors impacting decision-making.

Association of Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Bilateral Disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, the three most prevalent moderate-risk breast cancer genes, on surgical decision making is not well known. METHODS: Our retrospective study included patients with resectable non-metastatic breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between July 2014 and January 2020 with at least one genetic alteration (pathogenic or variant of uncertain significance [VUS] in ATM [n = 49], CHEK [n = 57], or PALB2 [n = 27]). Our objectives were to determine the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and the rate of bilateral breast cancer. Univariable analyses (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to identify factors associated with CPM and bilateral breast cancer. RESULTS: The rate of CPM was 39% (n = 49/127), with 54% (n = 25/46) of patients with a pathogenic mutation and 30% (n = 24/81) of patients with a VUS choosing CPM. On MVA, premenopausal status (odds ratio [OR] 3.46) and a pathogenic alteration (OR 3.01) were associated with increased use of CPM. Bilateral disease was noted in 16% (n = 22/138). Patients with pathogenic mutations had a 22% (n = 11/51) incidence of bilateral breast cancer, while patients with VUS had a 13% (n = 11/87) incidence, although this was not statistically significant on UVA or MVA. On MVA, premenopausal status was associated with a decreased risk of bilateral disease (OR 0.33, p = 0.022). During follow-up, a breast cancer event occurred in 16% (n = 22/138). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified a high rate of CPM among those with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 alterations, including VUS. Further studies are needed to clarify reasons for CPM among patients with moderate-risk alterations.

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.

Preserving choice in breast cancer treatment: A different perspective on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is the removal of both breasts when only one is affected by cancer. Rates of this controversial cancer treatment have been increasing since the late 1990s, even among women who do not have the kind of family history or known genetic mutation that would put them at high-risk for another breast cancer. Citing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy's lack of oncologic benefit and increased risk of surgical complications, the American Society of Breast Surgeons discourages contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer, as does most of the medical literature on this topic. Within this literature, desire for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is often painted as the product of an emotional overreaction to a cancer diagnosis and misunderstanding of breast cancer risk. Drawing on the personal experience of a breast cancer survivor, as well as relevant medical literature on breast cancer screening and surgery, this article offers a different perspective on the ongoing popularity of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, one that focuses on practical experiences and logical deliberations about those experiences. Specifically, it calls attention to two features of the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy decision-making situation that have been inadequately covered in the medical literature: (1) the way that breast cancer screening after a breast cancer diagnosis can become a kind of radiological overtreatment, even for "average-risk" women; and (2) how desire for bodily symmetry after breast cancer, which can best be achieved through bilateral reconstruction or no reconstruction, drives interest in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The goal of this article is not to suggest that all women who want contralateral prophylactic mastectomy should have the surgery. In some cases, it is not advisable. But many "average-risk" women with unilateral cancer have good reasons for wanting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and we believe their right to choose it should be protected.

Effect of rurality and travel distance on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite lack of survival benefit, demand for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer remains high. High uptake of CPM has been demonstrated in Midwestern rural women. Greater travel distance for surgical treatment is associated with CPM. Our objective was to examine the relationship between rurality and travel distance to surgery with CPM. METHODS: Women diagnosed with stages I-III unilateral breast cancer between 2007 and 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression was used to model likelihood of CPM based on rurality, proximity to metropolitan centers, and travel distance. A multinomial logistic regression model compared factors associated with CPM with reconstruction versus other surgical options. RESULTS: Both rurality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15 for non-metro/rural vs. metro) and travel distance (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41 for those who traveled 50 + miles vs. < 30 miles) were independently associated with CPM. For women who traveled 30 + miles, odds of receiving CPM were highest for non-metro/rural women (OR 1.33 for 30-49 miles, OR 1.57 for 50 + miles; reference: metro women traveling < 30 miles). Non-metro/rural women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM regardless of travel distance (ORs 1.11-1.21). Both metro and metro-adjacent women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM only if they traveled 30 + miles (ORs 1.24-1.30). CONCLUSION: The impact of travel distance on likelihood of CPM varies by patient rurality and receipt of reconstruction. Further research is needed to understand how patient residence, travel burden, and geographic access to comprehensive cancer care services, including reconstruction, influence patient decisions regarding surgery.

Does a brief surgeon training in negotiation theory principles decrease rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy?

PURPOSE: Despite the lack of any oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use among women with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. This patient-driven trend is influenced by fear of recurrence and desire for peace of mind. Traditional educational strategies have been ineffective in reducing CPM rates. Here we employ training in negotiation theory strategies for counseling and determine the effect on CPM rates. METHODS: In consecutive patients with unilateral breast cancer treated with mastectomy from 05/2017 to 12/2019, we examined CPM rates before and after a brief surgeon training in negotiation skills. This comprised a systematic framework for patient counseling utilizing early setting of the default option, leveraging social proof, and framing. RESULTS: Among 2144 patients, 925 (43%) were treated pre-training and 744 (35%) post-training. Those treated in the 6-month transition period were excluded (n = 475, 22%). Median patient age was 50 years; most patients had T1-T2 (72%), N0 (73%), and estrogen receptor-positive (80%) tumors of ductal histology (72%). The CPM rate was 47% pre-training versus 48% post-training, with an adjusted difference of -3.7% (95% CI -9.4 to 2.1, p = 0.2). In a standardized self-assessment survey, all 15 surgeons reported a high baseline use of negotiation skills and no significant change in conversational difficulty with the structured approach. CONCLUSION: Brief surgeon training did not affect self-reported use of negotiation skills or reduce CPM rates. The choice of CPM is a highly individual decision influenced by patient values and decision styles. Further research to identify effective strategies to minimize surgical overtreatment with CPM is needed.

Decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients related to contralateral prophylactic mastectomy-a systematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

PURPOSE: Currently, the choice of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer patients is variable and controversial. Breast cancer patients must make complex and rapid decisions based on the benefits and risks of CPM. Although there are many qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients, there is a lack of synthesis of these qualitative studies. Our study goals were to conduct a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences, real-life experiences, psychological feelings and needs of breast cancer patients in CPM decision-making, with the aim of providing information to support the development of CPM practice decisions. METHODS: Using a meta-ethnographic approach, qualitative research studies were analysed and synthesised using the method of "reciprocal translational analysis", and themes related to the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients with respect to CPM were identified. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-three documents were retrieved. This meta-synthesis ultimately collected 8 studies. Four themes were identified: (1) decision motivations for survival and body intention; (2) negative and vacillating decision emotions; (3) diverse but weak decision support; (4) short-term satisfaction but long-term unknown and differentiated decision effects. CONCLUSIONS: We found that although patients had different feelings about the effects of CPM in detail, most patients were satisfied with the short-term effects of CPM, but the long-term effects of CPM were still unknown. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) in May 2022 (Registration number: CRD42022334260).

EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

After a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, increasing numbers of patients are requesting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the surgical removal of the healthy breast after diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. It is important for the community of breast cancer specialists to provide meaningful guidance to women considering CPM. This manifesto discusses the issues and challenges of CPM and provides recommendations to improve oncological, surgical, physical and psychological outcomes for women presenting with unilateral breast cancer: (1) Communicate best available risks in manageable timeframes to prioritise actions; better risk stratification and implementation of risk-assessment tools combining family history, genetic and genomic information, and treatment and prognosis of the first breast cancer are required; (2) Reserve CPM for specific situations; in women not at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral breast-conserving surgery is the recommended option; (3) Encourage patients at low or intermediate risk of CBC to delay decisions on CPM until treatment for the primary cancer is complete, to focus on treating the existing disease first; (4) Provide patients with personalised information about the risk:benefit balance of CPM in manageable timeframes; (5) Ensure patients have an informed understanding of the competing risks for CBC and that there is a realistic plan for the patient; (6) Ensure patients understand the short- and long-term physical effects of CPM; (7) In patients considering CPM, offer psychological and surgical counselling before surgery; anxiety alone is not an indication for CPM; (8) Eliminate inequality between countries in reimbursement strategies; CPM should be reimbursed if it is considered a reasonable option resulting from multidisciplinary tumour board assessment; (9) Treat breast cancer patients at specialist breast units providing the entire patient-centred pathway.

Simultaneous contralateral prophylactic mastectomy compared to unilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer surgical treatment: Are complications higher?

BACKGROUND: This study compared post-operative reconstructive complications and oncologic treatment between patients who underwent unilateral versus bilateral nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) with implant based reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer who underwent NSM with IBR between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed. Patient demographics, surgical details, adjuvant therapy and postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 434 NSM with IBR were performed in 269 patients, 24% unilateral, and 76% bilateral. The bilateral group received a direct implant significantly more frequently and were younger compared to unilateral (p < 0.001). The unilateral group received post-mastectomy radiation therapy at significantly higher rate (p < 0.001) with no difference in receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, 11% of mastectomies developed a 30-day complication requiring reoperation and that extended to 13% at 120 days. There was no difference regarding the incidence of complications requiring reoperation (p = 0.84) or complications type between the two groups (p = 0.29). CONCLUSION: These findings support the oncologic and reconstructive equivalence to support patient choice in CPM.

Operating on Anxiety: Negative Affect toward Breast Cancer and Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-removal of the healthy breast following breast cancer diagnosis-have increased, particularly among women for whom CPM provides no survival benefit. Affective (i.e., emotional) decision making is often blamed for this increase. We studied whether greater negative breast cancer affect could motivate uptake of CPM through increased cancer risk perceptions and biased treatment evaluations. METHODS: We randomly assigned healthy women with average breast-cancer risk (N = 1030; Mage = 44.14, SD = 9.23 y) to 1 of 3 affect conditions (negative v. neutral v. positive narrative manipulation) in a hypothetical online experiment in which they were asked to imagine being diagnosed with cancer in one breast. We assessed 1) treatment choice, 2) affect toward CPM, and 3) perceived risk of future breast cancer in each breast (cancer affected and healthy) following lumpectomy, single mastectomy, and CPM. RESULTS: The manipulation caused women in the negative and neutral narrative conditions (26.9% and 26.4%, respectively) to choose CPM more compared with the positive narrative condition (19.1%). Across conditions, women's CPM affect did not differ. However, exploratory analyses addressing a possible association of affect toward cancer-related targets suggested that women in the negative narrative condition may have felt more positively toward CPM than women in the positive narrative condition. The manipulation did not have significant effects on breast cancer risk perceptions. LIMITATIONS: The manipulation of affect had a small effect size, possibly due to the hypothetical nature of this study and/or strong a priori knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer and its treatment options. CONCLUSION: Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM. HIGHLIGHTS: This study used narratives to elicit different levels of negative integral affect toward breast cancer to investigate the effects of affect on breast cancer treatment choices.Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased the choice of double mastectomy over lumpectomy and single mastectomy to treat a hypothetical, early-stage cancer.The narrative manipulation of negative affect toward breast cancer did not change the perceived risks of future cancer following any of the surgical interventions.Negative affect toward breast cancer may have biased affective evaluations of double mastectomy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer in Chinese female population: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Due to differences in socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, the characteristics and prognosis of Asian female patients choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are likely to be different from Western patients. To fill the research gap of CPM in Asian populations, this study aims to explore the application trend, survival benefits, decision-making factors, and satisfaction of CPM based on the Chinese patients undergoing CPM. Methods: The 0-III stage unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients who received breast surgery in the Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2005 to 2017 were selected. The surgical procedures included simple mastectomy (SM), nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), breast conserving surgery (BCS), and CPM. Cox proportional regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve were performed to compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between CPM group and unilateral mastectomy (UM) group. Proportional propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was used to match the two groups and secondary survival analysis was performed. Logistic regression models were used to test predictive factors related to patients' CPM surgical decision-making. Results: Four thousand two hundred and seventy-six patients were included in the study, with 73 patients receiving CPM, 3,567 receiving SM, 151 receiving NSM, and 485 receiving BCS. CPM surgery was first used in 2007, with a peak application rate of 3.02% in 2016. Three thousand seven hundred and ninety-one patients were included in the survival analysis, with a median follow-up time of 66.60 months. Compared to UM patients, neither the KM survival curve nor Cox regression hazard analyses of CPM showed better OS (P=0.963; P=0.834). After PSM, CPM also did not exhibit significant survival benefits in OS (P=0.335) and DFS (P=0.409). The logistic regression analyses showed that NSM surgery and lower tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage were independent factors to promote the CPM decision-making of patients. The CPM group showed high overall satisfaction (84.9%) and relatively low appearance satisfaction (69.9%). Conclusions: CPM was practiced for the first time since 2007 in our hospital. CPM does not provide any OS and DFS benefits compared to UM and the appearance satisfaction procedure was relatively low. Therefore, clinicians should fully communicate with patients before surgery and be more cautious in giving CPM recommendations.

Genetic Counseling, Screening and Risk-Reducing Surgery in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA Mutations: Unmet Needs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

OBJECTIVE: Worldwide genetic counseling practices are variable and often not reported in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present the follow-up genetic counseling, breast screening, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in a cohort of study patients with either BRCA pathogenic mutations or BRCA variant of unknown significance (VUS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chart review and phone calls for the collection of information. Out of a cohort of 250 patients, 14 had deleterious mutations and 31 had a VUS, of whom 19 had primary early breast cancer. We collected information about genetic counseling, screening, CPM and RRSO. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with deleterious mutations (7 BRCA1 and 7 BRCA2) and 19 patients with VUS mutations (20 VUS, 4 BRCA1, 16 BRCA2; 1 patient had both) were surveyed. Of 14 patients with deleterious BRCA mutations, 57.14% (8/14 patients) received genetic counseling from their oncologist. Subsequently 85.71% (12/14) are undergoing mammography screening and 35.71% (5/14) breast screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Furthermore, 50% of them underwent CPM and 57.14% underwent RRSO. Of 19 patients with VUS mutations, 10.5% received genetic counseling from their oncologist; 78.9% were undergoing regular screening mammogram and 31.5% were undergoing breast MRI; one patient underwent CPM and two patients RRSO. CONCLUSION: Within three years from knowing they have a mutation, 50% of patients with germline BRCA mutations had undergone CPM and 60% RRSO, the majority of them had screening mammography surveillance but only 50% had screening MRI. Follow-up of patients with VUS with mammography was 78% but MRI was only 31%. Lack of MRI surveillance reflects both limited resources and insufficient counseling. Genetic counseling was done by medical oncologists, which reflects a trend in LMIC. Our Data shows the importance of the need for professional genetic counselors and optimal surveillance in Lebanon and other LMICs.

Trends of Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy at the time of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have substantially increased. The study aimed to examine contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and evaluate factors contributing to CPM decision making process. METHOD: Patients who developed IBTR after BCS from 2011 to 2019 were reviewed. Patient and tumor characteristics, genetic testing and reconstruction details were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients had IBTR after BCS and were treated with mastectomy, with 30% electing for a CPM. Patients who underwent CPM were younger, had higher BMI and less comorbidities. A genetic mutation was identified in 19% of patients who underwent testing at the time of IBTR. Tumor characteristics and performing surgeon were not predictors for CPM, however, patients were more likely to undergo CPM if they received reconstruction of the ipsilateral breast with IBTR. CONCLUSION: This study shows that age, BMI, genetic testing and breast reconstruction are factors contributing to CPM decision at the time of IBTR.

The implementation of a decision aid for women with early-stage breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite little survival benefit and potential for harm, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates are increasing amongst early-stage breast cancer patients at low contralateral breast cancer risk. We developed a CPM decision aid (DA) and conducted a pilot implementation. METHODS: Surgeons and oncologists recruited eligible patients considering CPM. Consenting patients received the DA, completed a questionnaire and participated in a semi-structured interview. Clinicians were interviewed at study close. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians and 31 patients participated. Three themes emerged: perceived utility and impact of the DA, disagreement regarding timing of delivery and target population, and implementation strategies. Both women and clinicians found the DA valuable, indicating it confirmed rather than changed preferences. Women (all of whom raised CPM themselves), preferred offering the DA early in treatment discussions whilst clinicians favoured targeting women who enquired about CPM. CONCLUSION: A DA about CPM is feasible and acceptable, but questions remain about the role of DAs in these types of decisions where one option has limited medical benefit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Some women have a high need to make an informed choice about CPM. Tools to support this could include a DA with a clear recommendation against CPM and an explanation why.

How Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Does the Body, or Why Epistemology Alone Cannot Explain this Controversial Breast Cancer Treatment.

Since the late 1990s, the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer has been on the rise. Over the past two decades, dozens of studies have been conducted in order to understand this trend, which has puzzled and frustrated physicians who find it at odds with efforts to curb the surgical overtreatment of breast cancer, as well as with evidence-based medicine, which has established that the procedure has little oncologic benefit for most patients. Based on the work of Annemarie Mol and John Law, this paper argues that these efforts to understand increased CPM use are limited by the "epistemology problem" in medicine, or, in other words, the tendency to view healthcare controversies and decision making exclusively through the lenses of objective and subjective forms of knowledge. Drawing on public discourse about rationales for choosing CPM, we argue that this surgical trend cannot adequately be understood in terms of what doctors and patients know about breast cancer risk and how CPM affects that risk. In addition, it must be recognized as the outcome of how specific practices of screening, detection, and treatment do or enact the bodies of patients, producing tensions in their lives that cannot be remedied with better or better communicated information. Recognizing the embodied realities of these enactments and their effects on patient decision making, we maintain, is essential for physicians who want to avoid the paternalism that haunts breast cancer treatment in the US.