Are There Disparities in Breast Reconstruction After Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Despite national guidelines against contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in low- to moderate-risk breast cancer, CPM use continues to rise. Breast reconstruction improves health-related quality of life and satisfaction among women undergoing mastectomy. Given the lack of data regarding factors associated with reconstruction after CPM and the known benefits of reconstruction, we sought to investigate whether disparities exist in receipt of reconstruction after CPM. METHODS: The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried to identify women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent unilateral mastectomy with CPM. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent planned reconstruction at any timepoint and those who did not. A secondary analysis comparing types of reconstruction (tissue, implant, combined) was conducted. Patient, tumor, and demographic characteristics were analyzed using chi-square test and odds ratios were calculated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,73,249 women: 95,818 (55.3%) underwent reconstruction and 77,431 (45.7%) did not. Both the rate CPM and the proportion of women undergoing reconstruction after CPM increased between 2004 and 2017. Of the women who had reconstruction, 40,840 (51.7%) received implants, 29,807 (37.7%) had tissue, and 8352 (10.6%) had combined reconstruction. After adjusted analysis, factors associated with reconstruction were young age, Hispanic ethnicity, private insurance, and living in an area with the highest education and median income (P < 0.01). Patients who underwent reconstruction were less likely to have radiation (P < 0.01) and chemotherapy (P < 0.01), more likely to have stage I disease (P < 0.01), and to be treated at an integrated cancer center (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction after CPM is disproportionately received by younger women, Hispanics, those with private insurance, and higher socioeconomic status and education. While the rate of reconstruction after CPM is increasing, there remain significant disparities. Conscious efforts must be made to eliminate these disparities, especially given the known benefits of reconstruction after mastectomy.

Construction and Validation of a Nomogram Predicting the Overall Survival Benefit of Unilateral Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently, research on the prognostic factors of unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients receiving contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is limited. This study aimed to construct a new nomogram to predict these patients' overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this retrospective study, 88,477 patients who underwent CPM or unilateral mastectomy (UM) were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses were used to determine the difference in the impact of the 2 surgical methods on the prognosis. Multivariate Cox analysis was used to determine the best prognostic variable and construct a nomogram. The concordance index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to evaluate the discrimination capability and clinical effectiveness of the nomogram. RESULTS: The prognosis of patients receiving CPM and UM was significantly different. The DCA curves indicated that the nomogram could provide more excellent clinical net benefits for these patients. The NRI and IDI of the nomogram demonstrated that its performance was better than that of the classical tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. CONCLUSION: This study developed and validated a practical nomogram to predict the OS of UBC patients undergoing CPM, which provided a beneficial tool for clinical decision-making management.

Longitudinal Risk Management for Patients with Increased Risk for Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to characterize longitudinal care management and evaluate the relationship between various patient factors and the likelihood of choosing risk-reducing behaviors in women with increased risk of developing breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate all adult female patients who had at least one clinic visit with a surgical provider for discussion of breast cancer risk assessment between January, 2017 to July, 2020 at an academic center. Patients with prior history of breast cancer were excluded. Patient details and strategies pursued at clinic visits were recorded. A time-to-event analysis was performed, and hazard ratios were determined to characterize associations between patient characteristics and time to pursuing risk-reducing care management. RESULTS: There were 283 participants with at least one follow-up visit and 48 (17.0%) ultimately changed their initial strategy to either chemoprevention or prophylactic mastectomy. Patients with gene mutations were 6 times more likely to engage in risk-reducing management compared to those without (hazard ratio (HR) 5.99, P < 0.001). Those with histories of high-risk proliferative changes (HR 7.62, P < 0.001) and hysterectomy (HR 2.99, P = 0.019) were also more likely to engage in risk-reducing management. Age, race, and increased predicted risk of developing breast cancer (estimated by various calculators) were not associated with increased likelihood of engaging in risk-reducing strategies. CONCLUSION: Known gene mutations, history of high-risk proliferative changes, and prior hysterectomy were factors associated with women who were more likely to engage in risk-reducing strategies. These findings, when paired with patient reported outcome measures, may help guide shared decision-making.

Breast Device Surgery in Australia: Early Results from the Australian Breast Device Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) is a clinical quality registry designed to monitor the performance of breast devices; and the quality and safety of breast device surgery. OBJECTIVE: To report on breast device surgery characteristics across Australia. METHODS: Participants were registered patients in the ABDR from 2012 to 2018. Results are described using percentages, mean and median. Revision rates were calculated using survival analysis methods. RESULTS: A total of 37,603 patients were registered and had undergone reconstruction (post-cancer 15.1%, risk-reducing mastectomy 3.4% and developmental deformity 2.4%) or cosmetic augmentation (74.7%) procedures. The majority of breast implant devices were silicone filled with textured surface (reconstruction 74.0% and augmentation 64.0%). Sub-pectoral plane was the most common for both reconstruction (60.1%) and augmentation (76.6%) procedures. For reconstruction surgery, the most common surgical incision was previous mastectomy scar (44.0%) and inframammary (31.8%), and for augmentation, it was inframammary (83.4%). Intraoperative/postoperative antibiotic usage for reconstruction was 85.8% and augmentation was 89.4%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months post-cancer reconstruction was 5.1%, risk-reducing reconstruction 5.7% and developmental deformity implants 4.5%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months after augmentation procedure was 1.1%. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) indicate high levels of satisfaction at 1 year for augmentation and reconstruction procedures. CONCLUSION: We report on early data from the ABDR and reflect on the uptake of the registry by surgeons and patients. The registry also benefits from international collaborative approaches to addressing challenges and is committed to facilitate international post-market surveillance.

Decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates in average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is not recommended for average-risk women with breast cancer due to lack of evidence for survival benefit, yet recent studies demonstrate increasing CPM rates. METHODS: We identified patients with breast cancer treated with unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM. Rates of malignancy in CPM specimens and factors in CPM rates were assessed. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2017, 1353 patients had UM and 355 had CPM. Our institution's occult malignancy detection rate was 5.04%. CPM rates decreased from 31.6% to 17.3% (p < 0.001) over 5 years. Compared to patients receiving UM only, patients receiving CPMs had significantly higher reconstruction rates (p < 0.001), which did not significantly change over time (p = 0.551) and tended to be younger (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients having UM have low risk of contralateral malignancy. CPM is associated with younger age and breast reconstruction, suggesting factors to identify for patient and provider education.

Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Improper medical use of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) remains a concern in hereditary cancer genetic testing. The goal of this study was to assess the association between pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP), VUS, and benign and likely benign (B/LB) genetic test results and cancer-related surgical and screening management. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were conducted from 1946 to August 26, 2020. Eligible studies included individuals with cancer genetic test result and surgical or screening management outcomes. We reviewed 885 abstracts and 22 studies that reported relevant surgical and screening outcomes were included. Meta-analysis revealed significantly higher surgical rates among individuals with P/LP than among those with VUS for therapeutic mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 7.35, 95% CI, 4.14-13.64), prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 3.05, 95% CI, 1.5-6.19), and oophorectomy (OR = 6.46, 95% CI, 3.64-11.44). There were no significant differences in therapeutic mastectomy, or breast conservation or lumpectomy rates between individuals with P/LP and VUS, or in any outcomes between patients with VUS and B/LB. Studies evaluating screening outcomes were limited, and results were conflicting. Comprehensive analysis do not indicate that a significant number of individuals with VUS results undergo inappropriate clinical management.

Trends and timing of risk-reducing mastectomy uptake in unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers in Slovenia.

OBJECTIVES: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is one of key prevention strategies in female carriers of germline BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV). We retrospectively investigated the rate, timing and longitudinal trends of bilateral RRM uptake and the incidence and types of cancers among unaffected BRCA carriers who underwent genetic counseling at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana in Slovenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Female BRCA carriers without personal history of cancer were included in the study. Clinical data on PV/LPV type, date of RRM, type of reconstructive procedure, occult carcinoma and histopathology results was collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 346 unaffected BRCA carriers (median age 43 years, 70% BRCA1, 30% BRCA2, median follow-up 46 months) who underwent genetic testing between October 1999 and December 2019, 25.1% had a RRM (range 35-50 years, median age at surgery 38 years). A significant difference in time to prophylactic surgery between women undergoing RRM only vs. women undergoing RRM combined with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was observed (22.6 vs 8.7 months, p = 0.0009). We observed an upward trend in the annual uptake in line with the previously observed Angelina Jolie effect. In 5.7% of cases, occult breast cancer was detected. No women developed breast cancer after RRM. Women who did not opt for surgical prevention developed BRCA1/2-related cancers (9.3%). CONCLUSION: The uptake of RRM among unaffected BRCA carriers is 25.1% and is similar to our neighboring countries. No women developed breast cancer after RRM while women who did not opt for surgical prevention developed BRCA1/2 related cancers in 9.3% of cases. The reported data may provide meaningful aid for carriers when deciding on an optimal prevention strategy.

Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in women aged 70 and older: An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer incidence in women aged ≥70 years is steadily increasing, and many are choosing to undergo postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). We aimed to identify factors associated with PMBR, describe reconstruction types, and assess postoperative mortality and re-admission rates in women ≥70 years of age. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was examined between 2004 and 2015 for women aged ≥70 years with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy. Statistical analysis was performed by χ2 tests and multivariate logistic regression to select the best models for predicting PMBR and if patients underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with reconstruction. RESULTS: A total 73,973 patients met inclusion criteria and 4,552 (6.1%) underwent PMBR, of which 25% had a CPM. 48% had implant reconstruction, 36.2% underwent autologous reconstruction, and 15.1% received combination reconstruction. PMBR was more likely to be performed in patients who were White, had fewer comorbidities, were treated in the Northeast metropolitan areas, and with lower tumor stage (P < .001). CPM was more likely to be performed in patients who were White and treated in community hospitals in rural areas in the South and West. (P < .05). Although 30-day readmission rates were higher in PMBR patients (3.5% vs 2.8%, P < .001), 30 and 90-day mortality rates were lower: 0.03 and 0.2% vs 0.3 and 0.9% (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although it is understandable that intrinsic tumor characteristics influence the role of PMBR, further research and interventions should be aimed to eliminate the differences that are seen in patient race and geographic location. Readmission and postop mortality rates are overall low and comparable to that of younger patients.

Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants.

Genotype-first approach allows to systematically identify carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes conferring a high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer. Participants of the Estonian biobank have expressed support for the disclosure of clinically significant findings. With an Estonian biobank cohort, we applied a genotype-first approach, contacted carriers, and offered return of results with genetic counseling. We evaluated participants' responses to and the clinical utility of the reporting of actionable genetic findings. Twenty-two of 40 contacted carriers of 17 pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants responded and chose to receive results. Eight of these 22 participants qualified for high-risk assessment based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Twenty of 21 counseled participants appreciated being contacted. Relatives of 10 participants underwent cascade screening. Five of 16 eligible female BRCA1/2 variant carriers chose to undergo risk-reducing surgery, and 10 adhered to surveillance recommendations over the 30-month follow-up period. We recommend the return of results to population-based biobank participants; this approach could be viewed as a model for population-wide genetic testing. The genotype-first approach permits the identification of individuals at high risk who would not be identified by application of an approach based on personal and family histories only.

Expectations of Surveillance for Non-BRCA Gene Mutation Carriers at Increased Risk for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The University of Alabama at Birmingham Preventative Care Program for Women's Cancer provides genetic testing, risk evaluation, and screening for breast cancer. Women diagnosed with high-risk mutations may opt to undergo active surveillance or prophylactic surgery. This decision requires understanding of the surveillance process and its potential outcomes. In this study, we report specifically on women with non-BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted of women enrolled in our program identified as high risk because of non-BRCA mutations. Events regarding genetic mutations, method of detection of suspicious lesions, number of biopsies, results of those biopsies, prophylactic surgery, and cancer diagnosis were collected. RESULTS: We identified 78 patients with asymptomatic non-BRCA deleterious mutations. Sixteen mutations were identified, with the most common being ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2. In total, 11.5% underwent prophylactic surgery and 88.5% underwent active surveillance. In the surveillance group, 63.8% had no examination or imaging to warrant biopsy, 24.6% had biopsy with benign result, and 11.6% had biopsy with malignant result. For the nine women who developed breast cancer during surveillance, six were diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ, two with stage I, and one with stage IIA cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Women with non-BRCA mutations enroll in prevention clinics with hopes of early detection of breast cancer. Because of increased screening, this population undergoes biopsy more frequently; however, during surveillance most do not require a biopsy. For those that do, the result is typically benign. This information can further allow women to make informed decisions about surveillance and establish realistic expectations regarding the likelihood of tissue sampling.

Cancer risk management among female BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers.

PURPOSE: Identification of inherited breast cancer may guide cancer risk management. We sought to compare risk management practices across women with inherited breast cancer genes. METHODS: Females with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and/or ATM were surveyed about cancer risk management. Comparisons were made across genes. RESULTS: The 235 participants with P/LP variants (186 BRCA1/2, 28 PALB2, 15 CHEK2, and 6 ATM) had a median age of 54 and 61% had a prior breast cancer diagnosis. For women with P/LP variants in BRCA1/2, PALB2, and ATM/CHEK2, bilateral mastectomy (BM) rates were 79%, 61%, and 52%, and bilateral oophorectomy (BO) rates were 89%, 30%, and 37%, respectively. Among women with P/LP variants in PALB2 and ATM/CHEK2, 27% of those who had a BO had a family history of ovarian cancer. Contralateral mastectomy rates for women with P/LP variants in PALB2 and ATM/CHEK2 with unilateral breast cancer were 60% and 58%, and BM rates for those without breast cancer were 57% and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest high rates of both contralateral mastectomies among those with unilateral breast cancer and BM among those without a breast cancer diagnosis across women with P/LP variants in high and moderate penetrance breast cancer genes. BO was also often utilized for risk reduction across these women. These findings suggest potential overtreatment through risk-reducing surgery, and highlight the importance of promoting guideline-adherent, risk-appropriate care.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives. METHODS: Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices. RESULTS: Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

Breast reconstruction after risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is a favorable option for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (BRCA1/2Mut+) who undergo risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). We assessed characteristics of patients who underwent RRM, with or without breast reconstruction. METHODS: We included 46 patients with BRCA1/2Mut+ who underwent RRM from July 2011 to December 2017. RESULTS: Among the 46 patients who underwent RRM, 3 had not been diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) and 43 had cancer in a single breast; 33 patients (71.7%) underwent breast reconstruction with RRM; and 13 patients (28.3%) did not undergo breast reconstruction. All of 3 patients who had not been diagnosed with BC underwent bilateral RRM with breast reconstruction. There was no significant difference of clinical characteristic between patients undergoing RRM with and without breast reconstruction. However, patients who decided to undergo RRM with the current diagnosis of BC had significantly higher rates of RRM with breast reconstruction than that of patients with a past history of BC (P = 0.043). The rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients with breast reconstruction was significantly higher (28 of the 37 breasts, 75.7%) than that in patients without reconstruction (3 of the 14 breasts, 21.4%) (P < 0.001). Two patients who had complications underwent RRM with breast reconstruction, and one of them had a history of irradiation after lumpectomy. CONCLUSIONS: For BRCA1/2Mut+ patients, the decision of taking RRM with the diagnosis of current BC might affect whether they undergo immediate breast reconstruction with RRM. These patients who undergo RRM with breast reconstruction preferred NSM to skin-sparing mastectomies.

Postoperative complications in combined gynecologic, plastic, and breast surgery: An analysis from National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Patients undergoing the addition of a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with unilateral breast cancer have an increased and potentially doubled post-operative complication rate. One documented detriment from post-operative complications is the potential delay in initiating adjuvant therapy. To determine if the addition of a gynecologic and/or plastic reconstructive procedure to breast surgery results in an increased risk of postoperative complications and re-admissions, we evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing single vs multi-site surgery in a large national surgical database. We utilized the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database to identify patients who underwent breast surgery between 2011 and 2015. We extracted patients who underwent prophylactic oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy as a comparison group. Chi square analysis was used to assess postoperative outcomes including complications, readmission, and reoperation. All statistics were performed in SPSS v. 24. During the study timeframe, 77 030 patients had a solitary or combined breast surgical procedure and a second cohort of 124 patients underwent gynecologic surgery. Breast cancer patients who did not have a simultaneous reconstruction or gynecologic procedure were older with more comorbidities. Patients undergoing coordinated procedures had a significantly longer length of stay, higher complication, readmission, and reoperation rates (P < 0.001 for all) as compared with patients who underwent single site surgery. Patients with surgery for breast cancer, either with a plastic or gynecologic procedure, have greater postoperative complications. Higher complication rates for those with coordinated operations may lead to delays in adjuvant therapy and discussions regarding the indications for simultaneous surgery are recommended.

Exploring Surgeon Variability in Recommendations for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: What Matters Most?

BACKGROUND: American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) guidelines state that it is the responsibility of the surgeon to discuss the risks/benefits of and give a recommendation regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We conducted a survey of ASBrS members to evaluate the factors that affect this recommendation, confidence in this recommendation, and awareness/adoption of the guidelines. METHODS: A survey was sent to the ASBrS membership. Vignettes with the following variables about breast cancer patient were randomly included: age, disease stage, receptor status, family history (FH) of breast cancer, and patient preference for CPM. Respondents were asked to estimate the patient's chance of developing contralateral cancer, whether they would recommend CPM, and their confidence in this recommendation, and about their familiarity with and use of the guidelines. RESULTS: 536 members (21.9%) responded. The odds of recommending CPM and confidence in recommendation were higher in a younger patient, higher-stage disease, triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2+ relative to estrogen receptor (ER)+, and in women with FH. Of surgeons, 51% were familiar or very familiar with the guidelines and 38% used the guidelines most or all of the time. Surgeons who used the guidelines were not less likely to recommend CPM. CONCLUSIONS: While surgeons generally agree on the factors that are important in making a recommendation on CPM, there is variability in how strongly the different factors influence the recommendation and their confidence in that recommendation. In addition, while most surgeons were at least a little familiar with the ASBrS guidelines, the vast majority do not routinely use them.

Clinical Management of Patients at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer with Variants of Uncertain Significance in the Era of Multigene Panel Testing.

BACKGROUND: Rising use of multigene panel testing has led to increased identification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Consensus guidelines state that clinicians should not make medical management decisions based on VUS findings. We sought to analyze how VUS affect management of patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer. METHODS: All genetic testing reports for indications of hereditary breast cancer risk from a single tertiary-care institution from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed. Variants were grouped by pathogenicity (benign/likely benign, VUS, or pathogenic/likely pathogenic [P/LP]) and by breast cancer susceptibility (high, moderate, or none). Patient and management characteristics were compared by variant pathogenicity and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: Overall, 563 patients underwent genetic testing for breast cancer risk; 336 VUS were identified in 228 (40.5%) of patients of which 26.4% were in high or moderate penetrance genes. P/LP results were found in 61 (10.8%) patients, of which 61.2% were identified in breast-specific moderate and high penetrance genes, and 38.7% were found in non-breast specific genes. Of variants found in high-risk genes, 54.5% were P/LP and 45.5% were VUS. On multivariable analysis, prophylactic mastectomy was associated with younger age and personal history of cancer, but not variant pathogenicity or penetrance. There were no differences in the use of post-test imaging, oophorectomy, or colonoscopy based on variant findings or age. CONCLUSIONS: In this era of multigene panel testing, genetic factors help to inform, but not dictate, complex decision-making in surveillance and management of patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Active Participation in Decision-Making in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine how patient-physician communication affects patients' decision-making when choosing between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and unilateral mastectomy (UM). METHODS: atients with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy at our institution were approached with a survey regarding patient-physician communication in CPM. RESULTS: Of 101 patients who completed the survey, 55 underwent CPM (54.5%). Thirty-three patients (33%) stated that their physician recommended UM, six (6%) stated their physician recommended CPM, and 61 (61%) stated they engaged in active participation in decision-making. Most patients whose doctors recommended UM chose UM (78.8%); similarly, 83.3% of those whose doctors recommended CPM chose CPM. Of 39 patients whose doctors recommended a particular surgical option, eight (20.5%) did not follow their doctor's advice. These patients were equally as satisfied with their decisions as those who followed their doctor's advice (P = 0.441). Patients engaging in active participation in decision-making tended to choose CPM (68.3% versus 30.8%, P < 0.001). Patients who did not engage in active participation were similarly satisfied with their decision as those who did (P = 0.286). Twelve patients (12%) stated they preferred their doctor to provide a recommendation, seven (7%) preferred to make the decision on their own, and 81 (81%) preferred to actively participate in their decision-making with the physician. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tend to follow physicians' recommendation of UM or CPM; patients engaging in SDM tend to choose CPM. Most patients prefer to engage in active participation in decision-making with their physician but were equally satisfied with their surgical decision whether they engaged in active participation or not.

The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among elderly patients in the United States.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have reported increased rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the United States among women with unilateral breast cancer. These trends have primarily focused on younger breast cancer patients. Given the growing aging population in the United States, we sought to determine whether CPM use is also increasing in elderly patients. METHODS: This population-based study identified patients in the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) data. We determined the rate of CPM as a proportion of all surgically treated patients and as a proportion of all mastectomies. We compared the unadjusted CPM rates over the study period using the Cochrane-Armitage test for trend. We used a logistic regression model to test for the factors associated with CPM utilization. RESULTS: We identified 261,281 patients ≥ 65 years who underwent surgical treatment for breast cancer. For all patients treated with surgery for invasive breast cancer, the use of CPM increased from 1 in 2004 to 3% in 2014 (200% increase). Among mastectomy patients, the use of CPM increased from 3 in 2004 to 7% in 2014 (133% increase). Young age, non-Hispanic white race, lobular histology, higher grade, increased stage, negative lymph node status, and recent year of diagnosis were significantly associated with increased CPM rates. CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients the use of CPM has continued to increase in the United States. These observations warrant concern in light of increasing evidence that CPM does not improve oncological outcomes and is associated with increased morbidity in older patients.