Assessment of the effect of the American Society of Breast Surgery guidelines on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates for unilateral breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In July 2016, the American Society of Breast Surgeons published guidelines discouraging contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer. We incorporated these into practice with structured patient counseling and aimed to assess the effect of this initiative on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. METHODS: We evaluated female patients with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy at our institution from January 2011 to November 2022. Variables associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and trends over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ2 analysis as appropriate. RESULTS: Among 3,208 patients, (median age 54 years) 1,366 (43%) had a unilateral mastectomy, and 1,842 (57%) also had a concomitant contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Across all patients, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates significantly decreased post-implementation from 2017 to 2019 (55%) vs 2015 to 2016 (62%) (P = .01) but increased from 2020 to 2022 (61%). Immediate breast reconstruction rate was 70% overall (81% with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and 56% without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, P < .001). Younger age, White race, mutation status, and earlier stage were also associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Genetic testing increased from 27% pre-guideline to 74% 2020 to 2022, as did the proportion of patients with a pathogenic variant (4% pre-guideline vs 11% from 2020-2022, P < .001), of whom 91% had a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among tested patients without a pathogenic variant and patients not tested, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates declined from 78% to 67% and 48% to 38% pre -and post-guidelines, respectively, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Implementation of specific patient counseling was effective in decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. While recognizing that patient choice plays a significant role in the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, further educational efforts are warranted to affect contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates, particularly in the setting of negative genetic testing.

Bilateral immediate two-stage breast reconstruction in patients with unilateral breast cancer: Outcomes analysis and risk assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has the potential to decrease the occurrence of cancer and reduce psychological burden. However, it is known that complications after bilateral mastectomy are higher compared with unilateral mastectomy. Our goal was to evaluate outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy and to compare complication rates between therapeutic and prophylactic sides. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records of patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with expanders were reviewed. Postoperative complications were compared between therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy sides. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were analyzed. The overall complication rate after both stages was 23.9% on the therapeutic side and 16.5% on the prophylactic side. Infection was the most common complication on both sides. All infections on the prophylactic mastectomy side were successfully treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics (salvage rate of 100%), whereas 35.7% of infected tissue expander/implants on the therapeutic mastectomy side were explanted despite treatment. CONCLUSION: Careful counselling of patients undergoing elective contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is essential as complications can develop in either breast after reconstruction.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy following lumpectomy in early-stage breast cancer: Patterns of use and cost consequences among Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: In 2013, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) issued a Choosing Wisely recommendation against the routine use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for whole breast irradiation. We evaluated IMRT use and subsequent impact on Medicare expenditure in the period immediately preceding this recommendation to provide a baseline measure of IMRT use and associated cost consequences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SEER records for women ≥66 years with first primary diagnosis of Stage I/II breast cancer (2008-2011) were linked with Medicare claims (2007-2012). Eligibility criteria included lumpectomy within 6 months of diagnosis and radiotherapy within 6 months of lumpectomy. We evaluated IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy (cRT) use overall and by SEER registry (12 sites). We used generalized estimating equations logit models to explore adjusted odds ratios (OR) for associations between clinical, sociodemographic, and health services characteristics and IMRT use. Mean costs were calculated from Medicare allowable costs in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 13,037 women, mean age was 74.4, 50.5% had left-sided breast cancer, and 19.8% received IMRT. IMRT use varied from 0% to 52% across SEER registries. In multivariable analysis, left-sided breast cancer (OR 1.75), living in a big metropolitan area (OR 2.39), living in a census tract with ≤$90,000 median income (OR 1.75), neutral or favorable local coverage determination (OR 3.86, 1.72, respectively), and free-standing treatment facility (OR 3.49) were associated with receipt of IMRT (p<0.001). Mean expenditure in the year after diagnosis was $8,499 greater (p<0.001) among women receiving IMRT versus cRT. CONCLUSION: We found highly variable use of IMRT and higher expenditure in the year after diagnosis among women treated with IMRT (vs. cRT) with early-stage breast cancer and Medicare insurance. Our findings suggest a considerable opportunity to reduce treatment variation and cost of care while improving alignment between practice and clinical guidelines.

Patterns and Correlates of Knowledge, Communication, and Receipt of Breast Reconstruction in a Modern Population-Based Cohort of Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disparities persist in the receipt of breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and little is known about the nature of communication received by patients and potential variations that may exist. METHODS: Women with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) diagnosed between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries and surveyed to collect additional data on demographics, treatment, and decision-making experiences. Treating general/oncologic surgeons were also surveyed. Primary outcomes measures included self-reported communication-related measures on receipt of information on breast reconstruction and on the receipt of breast reconstruction. RESULTS: The authors analyzed 936 women who underwent mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Four hundred eighty-four (51.7 percent) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Women who were older and for whom English was not their primary spoken language had lower odds of being informed by a doctor about breast reconstruction. Ultimately, women who were older, were Asian, had invasive disease, had bronchitis/emphysema, and had lower income were less likely to undergo breast reconstruction. Breast reconstruction was performed more often in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomies (OR, 3.27; 95 percent CI, 2.26 to 4.75). Women cared for by surgeons with higher volumes of breast cancer patients (≥51 patients per year) were more likely to undergo breast reconstruction (OR, 2.43; 95 percent CI, 1.40 to 4.20). CONCLUSION: To eliminate existing disparities, increased efforts should be made in consultations for surgical management of breast cancer to provide information to all patients regarding the option of breast reconstruction, the possibility of immediate reconstruction, and insurance coverage of all stages of reconstruction.

The Cost of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with Unilateral Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be unnecessary from an oncologic perspective; therefore, the debate persists about the value of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. Given finite health care resources, this study aims to evaluate the cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. METHODS: Women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing either unilateral mastectomy or unilateral mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were selected from the Truven MarketScan databases between 2009 and 2013. Demographic and treatment data were recorded, and over an 18-month follow-up period, the treatment cost was tallied. A log-transformed linear model was used to compare cost between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2343 women were identified who met our inclusion criteria, with 1295 undergoing unilateral mastectomy and 1048 undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Complication rates within 18 months were similar for women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (39 percent versus 42 percent; p = 0.17). Management with unilateral mastectomy with reconstruction required an adjusted cumulative mean cost of $33,557. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction was an additional $11,872 in expenditure (p < 0.001). The cost of initial procedures (mean difference, $6467) and secondary procedures (mean difference, $2455) were the greatest contributors to cost. CONCLUSIONS: In women with unilateral breast cancer, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction is more costly. The increased monetary cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be offset by improved quality of life. However, this financial reality is an important consideration when ongoing efforts toward reimbursement reform may not pay for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy if outcomes data are not presented to justify this procedure.

Benefits and risks of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women undergoing treatment for sporadic unilateral breast cancer: a decision analysis.

The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is rising rapidly, despite limited evidence about the procedure's relative benefits and harms. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of CPM on life expectancy (LE) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in women with sporadic unilateral breast cancer. A Markov model was developed to compare 18 hypothetical cohorts of 45-year-old women with newly diagnosed unilateral, sporadic breast cancer treated with or without CPM. The probability of developing distant metastases by American Joint Committee on Cancer stage and molecular subtype was derived from British Columbia Cancer Agency data. Additional model parameters were identified from the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact of plausible variations in key model parameters on results. CPM improved LE in all cohorts (range 0.06-0.54 years). Stage had more effect on LE than subtype (stage I mean, 0.44 years, stage III mean, 0.11 years). However, after adjusting for quality-of-life, No CPM was favored in all cohorts. Univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the most influential model parameter was the post-CPM health state utility. The preferred strategy shifted from No CPM to CPM when the post-CPM utility exceeded 0.83 (base case value 0.81). PSA indicated that LE gains and QALE decreases were stable in all cohorts. The primary determinant of survival after unilateral breast cancer is stage at diagnosis. Our results suggest that routine CPM would not improve quality-adjusted survival for the majority of women with unilateral sporadic breast cancer.