The association between patient attitudes and values and the strength of consideration for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a population-based sample of breast cancer patients

Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Contralateral Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks

Rates of contralateral mastectomy (CM) among patients with unilateral breast cancer have been increasing in the United States. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, risks, and benefits of CM since the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and then conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. We reviewed the articles and made recommendations based on group consensus. Patients consider CM for many reasons, including concerns regarding the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), desire for improved cosmesis and symmetry, and preferences to avoid ongoing screening, whereas surgeons primarily consider CBC risk when making a recommendation for CM. For patients with a high risk of CBC, CM reduces the risk of new breast cancer, however it is not known to convey an overall survival benefit. Studies evaluating patient satisfaction with CM and reconstruction have yielded mixed results. Imaging with mammography within 12 months before CM is recommended, but routine preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging is not; there is also no evidence to support routine postmastectomy imaging surveillance. Because the likelihood of identifying an occult malignancy during CM is low, routine sentinel lymph node surgery is not recommended. Data on the rates of postoperative complications are conflicting, and such complications may not be directly related to CM. Adjuvant therapy delays due to complications have not been reported. Surgeons can reduce CM rates by encouraging shared decision making and informed discussions incorporating patient preferences.

Effects of Marijuana Use in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

Background

Marijuana use has been associated with vascular inflammation and clotting, resulting in endothelial damage and arteritis. As marijuana use rises in the United States, few studies have evaluated its impact on surgical outcomes and wound healing in free flap breast reconstruction.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing abdominal free flap breast reconstruction between 2016 and 2022 at a large metropolitan healthcare system was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural details, and complications were analyzed. Minor complications were defined as skin or fat necrosis not requiring intervention, nipple loss, any wound requiring management in the clinic, hematoma, and seroma. Major complications were defined as reoperation, flap loss, cardiac or thromboembolic events, and hospital readmission. Active marijuana users were those with marijuana use within 12 weeks of surgery.

Results

In total, 168 patients underwent 276 deep inferior epigastric artery-based flaps for breast reconstruction. There were 21 active marijuana users. There were no significant differences in patient demographics, cancer treatment, or minor and major complications. However, there were higher rates of active nicotine use (P = 0.001) and anxiety/depression amongst active marijuana users (P = 0.002). Active users had higher rates of bilateral breast reconstruction (P = 0.029), but no significant differences in other operative details.

Conclusions

Active marijuana use of unknown frequency may be safe in patients undergoing breast free flap reconstruction. Advising marijuana abstinence preoperatively may not alter patient outcomes. Further studies of greater sample size are needed to evaluate marijuana's impact on outcomes associated with breast reconstruction using free flap.

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.

Cracking open the eristic rhetoric of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy research or why surgeons should not be so certain about this controversial breast cancer treatment

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is a controversial breast cancer treatment in which both breasts are removed when only one is affected by cancer. Rates of CPM have been rising since the late 1990s, despite surgeons' strong agreement that the procedure should not be performed for average-risk women. This essay analyses that agreement as it is demonstrated in the surgical literature on CPM, arguing that it forms a 'rhetoric of certainty' built on the stark epistemological divide between objective and subjective forms of knowledge that operates in some areas of medicine. Further, the essay argues that this rhetoric of certainty has the potential to function as a kind of eristic rhetoric in which the right conclusion is known prior to any rhetorical exchange. As a way to 'crack open' this certainty, the essay compares the rhetoric of the surgical literature on CPM to the rhetoric of uncertainty in the radiological literature on breast cancer screening for women with a personal history of the disease. The goal of this comparison is not to suggest surgeons should support all choices for CPM. Rather, the aim is to demonstrate that choices against the procedure are not as straightforward as the surgical literature indicates and that the uncertainty affecting women's preferences for CPM is not solely the result of patient misunderstanding and/or emotional instability.

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; M_age = 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.

Improving patient-centered communication in breast cancer: a study protocol for a multilevel intervention of a shared treatment deliberation system (SharES) within the NCI community oncology research program (NCORP) (Alliance A231901CD)

BACKGROUND

Advances in precision medicine have given oncologists new evaluative tools to better individualize treatments for patients with curable breast cancer. These innovations have revealed a need to improve patient understanding of novel, often complex information related to breast cancer treatment decisions. Ensuring patients have the emotional support to face consequential treatment decisions, as well as the opportunity to engage and discuss with their clinicians, is key to improving patient-centered communication and patient understanding.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will implement a multilevel intervention with patient and clinician components as a NCORP Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR) trial within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Research Base (Alliance). The two interventions in this study, the Shared Decision Engagement System (SharES), include (1) two versions of an evidence-based patient-facing breast cancer treatment decision tool (iCanDecide +/- an emotional support module) and (2) a clinician-facing dashboard (Clinician Dashboard) that is reviewed by surgeons/clinicians and summarizes ongoing patient needs. The design is a near minimax, hybrid stepped wedge trial of SharES where both interventions are being evaluated in a crossed design over six 12-week time periods. The primary outcome (knowledge) and key secondary outcomes (i.e., self-efficacy and cancer worry) are assessed via patient report at 5 weeks after surgery. Secondary outcomes are also assessed at 5 weeks after surgery, as well as in a second survey 9 months after registration. We anticipate recruiting a total of 700 breast cancer patients (600 evaluable after attrition) from 25 surgical practices affiliated with Alliance.

DISCUSSION

Upon study completion, we will have better understanding of the impact of a multilevel intervention on patient-centered communication in breast cancer with a specific focus on whether the intervention components improve knowledge and self-efficacy and reduce cancer worry.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04549571 . Registered on 16 September 2020.

A Comparison of Complications in Therapeutic versus Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Reconstruction: A Paired Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although breast reconstruction after bilateral mastectomies including a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is known to have a higher overall complication profile, whether reconstructive complication rates differ between the therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy sides remains unclear.

METHODS

Women undergoing bilateral mastectomies with autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction for a unilateral breast cancer at a single institution were identified (2009 to 2019). Postoperative complications were stratified by laterality (therapeutic mastectomy versus contralateral prophylactic mastectomy). Paired data were analyzed to compare the risks of complications between prophylactic and therapeutic reconstruction sides in the same patient.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients (260 reconstructions) underwent bilateral autologous or implant-based reconstruction. Although most women underwent a simple mastectomy, a higher proportion of therapeutic mastectomies were modified radical mastectomies including axillary lymph node dissections compared to contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (15.4 percent versus 0 percent). Forty-four percent of women completed postmastectomy radiation therapy of the therapeutic side before definitive reconstruction. Overall, both therapeutic and prophylactic reconstructions had a similar incidence of reconstructive failure (p = 0.57), return to the operating room (p = 0.44), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.32), seroma (p = 0.82), fat necrosis (p = 0.16), wound infection (p = 0.56), and cellulitis (p = 0.56). Nearly one-fifth of patients experienced complications limited to the prophylactic side [contralateral prophylactic mastectomy reconstruction complications, n = 26 (20.0 percent); therapeutic mastectomy reconstruction complications, n = 15 (11.5 percent)].

CONCLUSION

Despite a history of local radiation therapy and more extensive oncologic surgery on the therapeutic side, there are no significant differences in the incidence of postsurgical complications on the therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy sides after bilateral reconstruction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

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.

Surgical Decision-Making Surrounding Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Comparison of Treatment Goals, Preferences, and Psychosocial Outcomes from a Multicenter Survey of Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Differences in patient characteristics and decision-making preferences have been described between those who elect breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM), or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer. However, it is not known whether preferred and actual decision-making roles differ across these surgery types, or whether surgery choice reflects a woman's goals or achieves desired outcomes.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer across eight large medical centers responded to a mailed questionnaire regarding treatment decision-making goals, roles, and outcomes. These data were linked to electronic medical records. Differences were assessed using descriptive analyses and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 750 study participants: 60.1% BCS, 17.9% UM, and 22.0% CPM. On multivariate analysis, reducing worry about recurrence was a more important goal for surgery in the CPM group than the others. Although women's preferred role in the treatment decision did not differ by surgery, the CPM group was more likely to report taking a more-active-than-preferred role than the BCS group. On multivariate analysis that included receipt of additional surgery, posttreatment worry about both ipsilateral and contralateral recurrence was higher in the BCS group than the CPM group (both p < 0.001). The UM group was more worried than the CPM group about contralateral recurrence only (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with CPM were more likely to report being able to reduce worry about recurrence as a very important goal for surgery. They were also the least worried about ipsilateral breast recurrence and contralateral breast cancer almost two years postdiagnosis.

B-Sure: a randomized pilot trial of an interactive web-based decision support aid versus usual care in average-risk breast cancer patients considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasing among breast cancer patients who are at average or "sporadic" risk for contralateral breast cancer. Because CPM provides no survival benefit for these patients, it is not medically recommended for them. Decision support aids may facilitate more informed, higher quality CPM decision. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of B-Sure, an online decision support aid to facilitate informed decisions regarding CPM, and to compare the impact of B-Sure in increasing CPM knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing preparedness to make the CPM decision among breast cancer patients at sporadic risk who are considering CPM. Ninety-three patients with unilateral, nonhereditary breast cancer considering CPM completed a baseline survey, were randomized to receive B-Sure or Usual care, and completed a 4-week follow-up survey assessing decisional conflict, preparedness to make the CPM decision, and CPM knowledge as well as self-efficacy, perceived risk, worry, CPM motivations, and the surgical decision. Study participation was high. B-Sure was viewed by almost 80% of the participants and was evaluated positively. At follow-up, patients assigned to B-Sure reported significantly higher clarity regarding the personal values relevant to the CPM decision and higher knowledge about CPM. B-Sure had smaller effects on other aspects of decisional conflict. B-Sure improved CPM knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. Patients considering CPM may benefit from an online decision support aid, but may be sensitive to approaches that they perceive as biased against CPM.

Multilevel Factors Associated With More Intensive Use of Radioactive Iodine for Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer

CONTEXT

The use of radioactive iodine (RAI) for low-risk thyroid cancer is common, and variation in its use exists, despite the lack of benefit for low-risk disease and potential harms and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To simultaneously assess patient- and physician-level factors associated with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer.

METHODS

This population-based survey study of patients with newly diagnosed differentiated thyroid cancer identified via the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County included 989 patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, linked to 345 of their treating general surgeons, otolaryngologists, and endocrinologists. We assessed the association of physician- and patient-level factors with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer.

RESULTS

Among this sample, 48% of patients reported receiving RAI, and 23% of their physicians reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer. Patients were more likely to report receiving RAI if they were treated by a physician who reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer compared with those whose physician reported they would not use RAI (adjusted OR: 1.84; 95% CI, 1.29-2.61). The odds of patients reporting they received RAI was 55% lower among patients whose physicians reported they saw a higher volume of patients with thyroid cancer (40+ vs 0-20) (adjusted OR: 0.45; 0.30-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Physician perspectives and attitudes about using RAI, as well as patient volume, influence RAI use for low-risk thyroid cancer. Efforts to reduce overuse of RAI in low-risk thyroid cancer should include interventions targeted toward physicians, in addition to patients.

Second primary breast cancer after unilateral mastectomy alone or with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

Background

An increasing number of patients undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer. However, the benefit of CPM has not been quantified in the setting of contemporary breast cancer therapy.

Methods

We performed an analysis of 180 068 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, diagnosed with unilateral ductal breast carcinoma between 1998 and 2013 and treated with unilateral mastectomy (UM) or CPM. UM was performed in 146 213 patients (81.2%); CPM was performed in 33 855 patients (19.8%). Primary outcome of interest was cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast greater than 3 months after initial diagnosis. Cumulative incidence analysis was based on a Cox proportional model to generate curves of second primary breast cancer in any breast, ipsilateral breast only, or contralateral breast only.

Results

Patients who underwent CPM had a significantly reduced incidence of second primary breast cancer 10 and 15 years after surgery (CPM 0.93% [0.73%, 1.12%] vs UM 4.44% [4.28%, 4.60%]). Patients who underwent CPM had significantly lower adjusted hazard of second primary breast cancer when compared with UM (HR 0.38 vs 1.0, P < .0001).

Conclusions

CPM offers some protection from a second primary breast cancer, attributable to a reduced incidence in the contralateral breast. These findings provide additional information to providers and patients as they make decisions regarding surgical management. They should also be interpreted in the context of the absolute incidence of second primary breast cancer after UM and previous literature demonstrating no survival benefit.

Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Role Perceptions and Choice of Surgery

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies have reported that breast cancer patients who perceived more personal responsibility for the surgery decision were more likely to undergo aggressive surgery. We examined this in a prospective study.

METHODS

100 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients identified their decision- making role using the Patient Preference Scale. Chart review captured the initial surgery received. Patient decision role preference, role perception, role concordance, and provider role perception were compared with type of surgery to assess differences between mastectomy and lumpectomy groups and unilateral versus bilateral mastectomy. We compared type of surgery and patient role concordance. Satisfaction with Decision immediately after the visit, Decision Regret and FACT-B quality of life at 2 weeks and 6 months were assessed and compared with type of surgery.

RESULTS

Patient decision role preference (p = 0.49) and perception (p = 0.16) were not associated with type of surgery. Provider perception of patient role was associated with type of surgery, with providers perceiving more passive patient roles in the mastectomy group (p = 0.026). Patient role preference varied significantly by stage of disease (= 0.024), with stage 0 (64%, N = 6) and stage III (60%, N = 6) patients preferring active roles and stage I (60%, N = 25) and stage II (52%, N = 16) patients preferring a collaborative role.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient role preference and perception were not associated with type of surgery, while provider perception of patient role was. Patient role preference varied by stage of disease. Further study is warranted to better understand how disease factors and provider interactions affect decision role preferences and perceptions and surgical choice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03350854). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03350854 .

Parental Status in Treatment Decision Making among Women with Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer

Background. Having dependent children may affect cancer treatment decisions. We sought to describe women's surgery and chemotherapy decisions in nonmetastatic breast cancer by parental status. Methods. We conducted a secondary analysis of the 2015 cross-sectional Share Thoughts on Breast Cancer Study, conducted in 7 Midwestern states in the United States, restricted to women of prime parenting age (aged 20-50 years) who consented to the use of their medical records (N = 225). We examined treatment decisions using data visualization and logistic regression (adjusted for age, stage, family history of breast cancer, income, education, race, health insurance, and partner status). Results. Women with dependent children received bilateral mastectomy more often than women without dependent children (adjusted odds ratio 3.09, 95% confidence interval 1.44-6.62).We found no differences in the receipt of chemotherapy by parental status. Women reported more active roles in surgery than in chemotherapy decision making. Conclusions. As a likely factor in cancer treatment decisions, parental status should be addressed in clinical practice and research. Future research should assess patients' sense of ownership in treatment decision making by treatment type.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer: what to discuss with patients

Introduction: The contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rate in the U.S. has been steadily increasing. This is of particular concern because many women who undergo this procedure are candidates for breast-conserving surgery.Areas covered: CPM's medical benefit is related to the risk of contralateral cancer development and whether CPM provides a survival benefit. Contralateral cancer rates have decreased, and CPM does not provide a survival benefit. Other potential benefits of the procedure may be improved quality of life; these data are reviewed. Research efforts have been undertaken to better understand the decision-making process of patients who consider, and ultimately undergo, this procedure.Expert opinion: Decisional traits, personal values, the desire for peace of mind, and the desire to obtain breast symmetry are important factors that drive a woman's decision to undergo CPM. Additionally, many patients lack the knowledge on how different types of breast surgery impact outcomes. To improve the shared decision-making process, a stepwise approach to address possible misconceptions, and clarify the real risks/benefits of this procedure should be utilized. A clear recommendation (for/against) should be made for every patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer who considers CPM. Communication tools to assist patients and surgeons in this process are sorely needed.

Breast Biopsy During Post-treatment Surveillance of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer Patients Yields High Rates of Benign Findings

BACKGROUND

The incidence of breast biopsy following treatment for breast cancer is not well-characterized. We sought to determine the frequency and outcomes of breast biopsy and the need for subsequent surgery in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS

Using a prospective database, we identified patients in Alberta, Canada, treated with BCS for screen-detected breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from 2010 to 2014. Post-treatment breast procedures were identified from physician claims data. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with biopsy.

RESULTS

We included 2065 patients with a median of 6.4 years of follow-up; most had DCIS (n = 426, 20.6%) or stage I disease (n = 1385, 67.1%). Post-treatment core biopsy was performed in 389 (18.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2-20.6%) patients, and excisional biopsy was performed in 19 (0.9%, 95% CI 0.6-1.4%) patients. The per-patient benign-to-malignant biopsy ratio was 3.2 to 1, and the overall malignancy rate was 6.1% (95% CI 5.1-7.2%). Younger age, proximity to a cancer center, positive margins, and the use of magnetic resonance imaging were associated with biopsy (p < 0.05). Additional surgery was performed in 150 (7.3%, 95% CI 6.2-8.5%) patients; 93 (4.5%, 95% CI 3.6-5.4%) patients underwent mastectomy. Surgery was performed for local recurrence/ipsilateral cancer in 62 (3.0%) patients, contralateral breast cancer in 60 (2.9%) patients, bilateral breast cancer in 3 (0.1%) patients, and benign indications/prophylaxis in 25 (1.2%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

One in five patients required breast biopsy during post-treatment surveillance following BCS and most revealed benign findings. Rates of additional surgery, especially subsequent mastectomy due to ipsilateral or contralateral malignancy, were low. Patients can be reassured of these findings during pre-treatment counseling and post-treatment surveillance.

Factors that impact risk management decisions among women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes associated with hereditary breast cancer

There is limited information known about how women with pathogenic variants (PV) in moderate penetrance genes make decisions to manage their increased risk of breast cancer. This study analyzed factors that may impact decision-making surrounding management for increased breast cancer risk. Women with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene associated with increased risk for breast cancer were identified from an institutional database. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted to analyze decision-making factors. Themes were developed using deductive codes based on previous literature and inductive codes based on interviewee responses. The 16 participants (mean age = 55.9 years) included 12 women with a breast cancer diagnosis. Six women (37.5%) chose bilateral mastectomy (BM), and 10 women (62.5%) chose surveillance as management. Of the 12 women with a personal history of breast cancer, four chose to have BM (33.3%). Two women without a personal history of breast cancer chose to have BM (50.0%). Transcriptions revealed seven comprehensive themes, as well as themes unique to affected and unaffected women (Cohen's kappa = 0.80). Physician opinion was the only factor present in all interviews reported to influence risk management decision-making. Several themes were consistent with prior BRCA1/BRCA2 research (family history, risk perception, sibling influence, and physician opinions). Autonomy and insurance/finances were also important factors to participants. There were certain differences in decision-making factors between affected and unaffected women, such as partner influence. Results indicate an opportunity for providers to engage their patients in a decision-making process.

Patient-Perceived Lack of Choice in Receipt of Radioactive Iodine for Treatment of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

PURPOSE

For many patients with differentiated thyroid cancer, use of radioactive iodine (RAI) does not improve survival or reduce recurrence risk. Yet there is wide variation in RAI use, emphasizing the importance of understanding patient perspectives regarding RAI decision making.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All eligible patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer from 2014 to 2015 from the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed (N = 2,632; response rate, 63%). Patients in whom selective RAI use is recommended were included in this analysis (n = 1,319). Patients were asked whether they felt like they had a choice to receive RAI (yes or no), how strongly their physician recommended RAI (5-point Likert-type scale), whether they received RAI (yes or no), and how satisfied they were with their RAI decision (more [score of 4 or greater] v less). Multivariable, weighted logistic regression with multiple imputation was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and perception of no RAI choice and between perception of no RAI choice with receipt of RAI and decision satisfaction.

RESULTS

More than half of respondents (55.8%) perceived they did not have an RAI choice, and the majority of patients (75.9%) received RAI. The odds of perceiving no RAI choice was greater among those whose physician strongly recommended RAI (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.17). Patients who perceived they did not have an RAI choice were more likely to receive RAI (adjusted OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.64 to 3.82) and report lower decision satisfaction (adjusted OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.20).

CONCLUSION

Many patients did not feel they had a choice about whether to receive RAI. Patients who perceived they did not have a choice were more likely to receive RAI and report lower decision satisfaction, suggesting a need for more shared decision making to reduce overtreatment.

Growing Trends of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Reconstruction in Young Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trends of surgical treatments among young patients in T₁N_0-1M₀ stage based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged less than 40 y diagnosed between 1998 and 2015 were enrolled, with tumors in T₁N_0-1M₀ stage and not located in the central area. Differences in clinical-pathological characteristics were evaluated using chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to measure the various factors associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Independent prognostic factors were evaluated by Cox model.

RESULTS

The total rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was 51.6%, which declined from 64.5% in 1998 to 39.6% in 2015. The total rate of CPM was 22.7%, which increased from 3.7% in 1998 to 38.7% in 2014 despite a decline to 32.7% in 2015. Meanwhile, the rate of reconstruction increased in line with that of CPM, from 9.4% in 1998 to 35.0% in 2015. There was a trend of increasing use of implant-based reconstruction. Significant higher odds of CPM were found in recent year of diagnosis between 2010 and 2015 and in implant-based reconstruction. Patients undergoing CPM had similar survival outcomes compared with those undergoing BCS and unilateral mastectomy, whereas those undergoing BCS had better survival outcomes compared with those undergoing unilateral mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

A trend of growing preference for CPM and reconstruction was observed among young patients in early stage in recent years without survival benefits. Efforts should be made to promote efficient communication and evidence-based decision-making.

"I don't want to take chances.": A qualitative exploration of surgical decision making in young breast cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

Young women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), despite its limited medical benefit for most women. The purpose of this study was to better understand this choice through a qualitative exploration of surgical decision-making in young survivors, including how issues particular to younger women affected their decision and the post-surgical experience.

METHODS

Women age ≤ 40 years with stage 0 to III breast cancer, 1 to 3 years from diagnosis who had undergone breast cancer surgery were recruited to participate. Four focus groups were conducted: 2 with women who had bilateral mastectomy and 2 with women who kept their contralateral breast. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed with identifiers removed. Emergent themes were identified by thematic content analysis using NVivo 11.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, median age at diagnosis was 37 years. Emergent themes were categorized into the following domains: (1) emotions/feelings surrounding surgery/decision about surgery; (2) factors affecting the decision; (3) communication and interaction with the healthcare team; (4) impact on post-surgical life and recovery; and (5) support needs. Young women who chose CPM often were concerned about a future breast event, despite this low risk, suggesting some gain peace of mind by choosing CPM. Young survivors also had many physical and emotional concerns after surgery for which they did not always feel prepared.

CONCLUSIONS

Informational resources and decision aids may enhance patient-doctor communication and help young survivors better understand risk and manage expectations surrounding short and longer-term physical and emotional effects after surgery.