Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer despite low rates of contralateral recurrence and lack of survival benefit. We aimed to investigate the decisional needs and supports required to ensure adequate and quality decision-making by patients with breast cancer facing the decision regarding CPM. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews developed with the use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to investigate the decisional needs and supports of women (aged > 18 yr) with nonhereditary breast cancer who had previously discussed CPM with their care provider. Patients were recruited from 2 academic cancer centres in Toronto, Ontario. Interviews were conducted between June 2016 and October 2017. We analyzed responses to the open-ended questions iteratively and inductively to establish major themes within the results. RESULTS: Ten patients were recruited. Eight patients reported having initiated the discussion about CPM. Although most patients reported feeling supported, 6 mentioned some degree of decisional conflict. Cancer risk reduction was the most commonly reported perceived benefit of CPM (9 patients), followed by improved psychologic well-being (7). Most patients (8) did not mention the lack of survival benefit of CPM as a disadvantage of the procedure. Patients indicated that information resources (in 8 cases) and improved counselling from their health care team (in 7) would assist in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate the disconnect between true and perceived risks (i.e., surgical risk) and benefits (potential recurrence and survival benefit) of CPM, which is not being managed adequately despite support from the health care team. A decision aid may address unmet patient need by providing a reliable resource regarding the benefits and risks of this procedure, while helping patients understand their values and realign their expectations.

Measuring Marrow Density and Area Using Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography at the Tibia: Precision in Young and Older Adults and Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury.

The objective of this study was to compare the test-retest precision error for peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT)-derived marrow density and marrow area segmentation at the tibia using 3 software packages. A secondary analysis of pQCT data in young adults (n = 18, mean ± standard deviation 25.4 ± 3.2 yr), older adults (n = 47, 71.8 ± 8.2 yr), and individuals with spinal cord injury (C1-T12 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale, classes A-C; n = 19, 43.5 ± 8.6 yr) was conducted. Repeat scans of the tibial shaft (66%) were performed using pQCT (Stratec XCT2000). Test-retest precision errors (root mean square standard deviation and root mean square coefficient of variation [RMSCV%]) for marrow density (mg/cm3) and marrow area (mm2) were reported for the watershed-guided manual segmentation method (SliceOmatic version 4.3 [Sliceo-WS]) and the 2 threshold-based edge detection methods (Stratec version 6.0 [Stratec-TB] and BoneJ version 1.3.14 [BoneJ-TB]). Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement were computed to evaluate test-retest discrepancies within and between methods of analysis and subgroups. RMSCV% for marrow density segmentation was >5% for all methods across subgroups (Stratec-TB: 12.2%-28.5%, BoneJ-TB: 14.5%-25.2%, and Sliceo-WS: 10.9%-23.0%). RMSCV% for marrow area segmentation was within 5% for all methods across subgroups (Stratec-TB: 1.9%-4.4%, BoneJ-TB: 2.6%-5.1%, and Sliceo-WS: 2.4%-4.5%), except using BoneJ-TB in older adults. Intermethod discrepancies in marrow density appeared to be present across the range of marrow density values and did not differ by subgroup. Intermethod discrepancies varied to a greater extent for marrow area and were found to be more frequently at mid- to higher-range values for those with spinal cord injury. Precision error for pQCT-derived marrow density segmentation exceeded 5% for all methods of analysis across a range of bone mineral densities and fat infiltration, whereas precision error for marrow area segmentation ranged from 2% to 5%. Further investigation is necessary to determine alternative acquisition and analysis methods for pQCT-derived marrow segmentation.

Score Distributions of the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) in Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Vertebral Fracture.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the Balance Outcome Measure for Elder Rehabilitation (BOOMER) in community-dwelling women 65 years and older with vertebral fracture and to describe score distributions and potential ceiling and floor effects. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis of baseline data from the Build Better Bones with Exercise randomized controlled trial using the BOOMER. A total of 141 women with osteoporosis and radiographically confirmed vertebral fracture were included. Concurrent validity and internal consistency were assessed in comparison to the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Normality and ceiling/floor effects of total BOOMER scores and component test items were also assessed. Exploratory analyses of assistive aid use and falls history were performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Tests for concurrent validity demonstrated moderate correlation between total BOOMER and SPPB scores. The BOOMER component tests showed modest internal consistency. Substantial ceiling effect and nonnormal score distributions were present among overall sample and those not using assistive aids for total BOOMER scores, although scores were normally distributed for those using assistive aids. The static standing with eyes closed test demonstrated the greatest ceiling effects of the component tests, with 92% of participants achieving a maximal score. CONCLUSIONS: While the BOOMER compares well with the SPPB in community-dwelling women with vertebral fractures, researchers or clinicians considering using the BOOMER in similar or higher-functioning populations should be aware of the potential for ceiling effects.