What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

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.

Numeracy levels influence shared decision-making and surgical outcomes: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Health literacy has been widely studied with regard to medical decision-making and health care access, however research regarding numeracy - the ability to comprehend and attach meaning to numbers - is more limited.

METHODS

A scoping review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We screened 132 abstracts and 12 studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Surgical population numeracy ranged from 47 to 86.1%. We found heterogeneity in the scales used to measure numeracy and the cutoff values used to define adequate numeracy. Low numeracy was shown to influence the accuracy of patients' responses to quality of life measures used to determine surgical outcomes and was associated with patient overestimation of pre-operative risk. Adequate numeracy was correlated with improved outcomes 2-4 years after bariatric surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient numeracy is generally poor and has important implications for pre-operative risk understanding, accuracy of health measurement tools and long-term surgical outcomes.

Fear of cancer recurrence and coping attitudes of breast cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the fear of cancer recurrence levels and coping orientation of breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

This descriptive exploratory study was conducted using a web-based online survey. This article is written using the STROBE checklist. The study was completed with 204 women participants. Data were collected using the 'Demographic and Clinical Information Form', 'Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI)' and 'Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory-Revised (COPE-R)'.

RESULTS

FCRI total score average within the scope of the study was calculated as 42.00 ± 18.88. Women's COPE-R total score average is 80.62 ± 13.20. There was a positive correlation between FCRI total score and COPE-R (r = 0.183, p = 0.009). According to the results of multiple linear regression analysis, age, education level, CAM usage, getting psychological support and COPE-R subscales (accommodation, avoidance, self-punishment) were associated with FCRI total score.

CONCLUSIONS

The fear of cancer recurrence experienced by breast cancer survivors was associated with their coping orientation. Determining the fear of cancer recurrence level and coping orientation of breast cancer survivors by healthcare professionals will guide the reduction of women's fear of cancer recurrence and further the development of adaptive coping orientation.

Analysis of a Trend Reversal in US Lumpectomy Rates From 2005 Through 2017 Using 3 Nationwide Data Sets

Importance

Rates of lumpectomy for breast cancer management in the United States previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options, such as mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM).

Objective

To evaluate longitudinal trends in the rates of lumpectomy and mastectomy, including unilateral mastectomy vs CPM rates, and to determine characteristics associated with current surgical practice using 3 national data sets.

Design and Setting

Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and National Cancer Database (NCDB) were examined to evaluate trends in lumpectomy and mastectomy rates from 2005 through 2017. Mastectomy rates were also evaluated with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed on the NCDB data set to identify predictors of lumpectomy and CPM.

Results

A study sample of 3 467 645 female surgical breast cancer patients was analyzed. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010 and 2013, with a significant increase thereafter. Conversely, in comparison with lumpectomy rates, overall mastectomy rates declined significantly starting in 2013. Cochran-Armitage trend tests demonstrated an annual decrease in lumpectomy rates of 1.31% (95% CI, 1.30%-1.32%), 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.12%), and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.16%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively, from 2005 to 2013 (P < .001, P = .01, and P < .001, respectively). From 2013 to 2017, the annual increase in lumpectomy rates was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.95%-0.98%), 1.60% (95% CI, 1.59%-1.62%), and 1.66% (95% CI, 1.65%-1.67%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively (all P < .001). Comparisons of specific mastectomy types showed that unilateral mastectomy and CPM rates stabilized after 2013, with unilateral mastectomy rates remaining higher than CPM rates throughout the entire time period.

Conclusions

This observational longitudinal analysis indicated a trend reversal with an increase in lumpectomy rates since 2013 and an associated decline in mastectomies. The steady increase in CPM rates from 2005 to 2013 has since stabilized. The reasons for the recent reversal in trends are likely multifactorial. Further qualitative and quantitative research is required to understand the factors driving these recent practice changes and their associations with patient-reported outcomes.

The risk of contralateral breast cancer: a SEER-based analysis

BACKGROUND

We sought to estimate the annual risk and 25-year cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer.

METHODS

We identified 812,851 women with unilateral breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 2015 in the SEER database and followed them for contralateral breast cancer for up to 25 years. Women with a known bilateral mastectomy were excluded. We calculated the annual risk of contralateral breast cancer by age at diagnosis, by time since diagnosis and by current age. We compared risks by ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive disease, by race and by oestrogen receptor (ER) status of the first cancer.

RESULTS

There were 25,958 cases of contralateral invasive breast cancer diagnosed (3.2% of all patients). The annual risk of contralateral breast cancer over the 25-year follow-up period was 0.37% and the 25-year actuarial risk of contralateral invasive breast cancer was 9.9%. The annual risk varied to a small degree by age of diagnosis, by time elapsed since diagnosis and by current age. The 25-year actuarial risk was similar for DCIS and invasive breast cancer patients (10.1 versus 9.9%). The 25-year actuarial risk was higher for black women (12.7%) than for white women (9.7%) and was lower for women with ER-positive breast cancer (9.5%) than for women with ER-negative breast cancer (11.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with unilateral breast cancer experience an annual risk of contralateral breast cancer ~0.4% per year, which persists over the 25-year follow-up period.

A Systematic Review of Estimating Breast Cancer Recurrence at the Population Level With Administrative Data

BACKGROUND

Exact numbers of breast cancer recurrences are currently unknown at the population level, because they are challenging to actively collect. Previously, real-world data such as administrative claims have been used within expert- or data-driven (machine learning) algorithms for estimating cancer recurrence. We present the first systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, of publications estimating breast cancer recurrence at the population level using algorithms based on administrative data.

METHODS

The systematic literature search followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We evaluated and compared sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of algorithms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using a generalized linear mixed model to obtain a pooled estimate of accuracy.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. Most articles used information from medical files as the gold standard, defined as any recurrence. Two studies included bone metastases only in the definition of recurrence. Fewer studies used a model-based approach (decision trees or logistic regression) (41.2%) compared with studies using detection rules without specified model (58.8%). The generalized linear mixed model for all recurrence types reported an accuracy of 92.2% (95% confidence interval = 88.4% to 94.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Publications reporting algorithms for detecting breast cancer recurrence are limited in number and heterogeneous. A thorough analysis of the existing algorithms demonstrated the need for more standardization and validation. The meta-analysis reported a high accuracy overall, which indicates algorithms as promising tools to identify breast cancer recurrence at the population level. The rule-based approach combined with emerging machine learning algorithms could be interesting to explore in the future.

Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Outcomes Following Surgery in Women with Unilateral Nonhereditary Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Rates of bilateral mastectomy are rising in women with unilateral, nonhereditary breast cancer. We aim to characterize how psychosocial outcomes evolve after breast cancer surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study of women with unilateral, sporadic stage 0-III breast cancer at University Health Network in Toronto, Canada between 2014 and 2017. Women completed validated psychosocial questionnaires (BREAST-Q, Impact of Event Scale, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale) preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months following surgery. Change in psychosocial scores was assessed between surgical groups using linear mixed models, controlling for age, stage, and adjuvant treatments. P < .05 were significant.

RESULTS

A total of 475 women underwent unilateral lumpectomy (42.5%), unilateral mastectomy (38.3%), and bilateral mastectomy (19.2%). There was a significant interaction (P < .0001) between procedure and time for breast satisfaction, psychosocial and physical well-being. Women having unilateral lumpectomy had higher breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being scores at 6 and 12 months after surgery compared with either unilateral or bilateral mastectomy, with no difference between the latter two groups. Physical well-being declined in all groups over time; scores were not better in women having bilateral mastectomy. While sexual well-being scores remained stable in the unilateral lumpectomy group, scores declined similarly in both unilateral and bilateral mastectomy groups over time. Cancer-related distress, anxiety, and depression scores declined significantly after surgery, regardless of surgical procedure (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial outcomes are not improved with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer. Our data may inform women considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Bilateral Mastectomy in Women With Unilateral Breast Cancer: A Review

Importance

Rates of bilateral mastectomy continue to increase in average-risk women with unilateral in situ and invasive breast cancer. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates increased from 5% to 12% of all operations for breast cancer in the US from 2004 to 2012. Among women having mastectomy, rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy have increased from less than 2% in 1998 to 30% in 2012.

Observations

The increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing has marginally increased the number of candidates for bilateral mastectomy. Most bilateral mastectomies are performed on women who are at no special risk for contralateral cancer. The true risk of contralateral breast cancer is not associated with the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; rather, the clinical factors associated with the probability of distant recurrence are associated with bilateral mastectomy. Several changes in society and health care delivery appear to act concurrently and synergistically. First, the anxiety engendered by a fear of cancer recurrence is focused on the contralateral cancer because this is most easily conceptualized and provides a ready target that can be acted upon. Second, the modern woman with breast cancer is supported by the surgeon and the social community of breast cancer survivors. Surgeons want to respect patient autonomy, despite guidelines discouraging bilateral mastectomy, and most women have their expenses covered by a third-party payer. Satisfaction with the results is high, but the association with improved psychosocial well-being remains to be fully understood.

Conclusions and Relevance

Reducing the use of medically unnecessary contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary, unilateral breast cancer requires a social change that addresses patient-, physician-, cultural-, and systems-level enabling factors. Such a transformation begins with educating clinicians and patients. The concerns of women who want preventive contralateral mastectomy must be explored, and women need to be informed of the anticipated benefits (or lack thereof) and risks. Areas requiring further study are considered.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability

The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased steadily over the last twenty years in women of all age groups and breast cancer stages. Since contralateral breast cancer is relatively rare and the breast cancer guidelines only recommend CPM in a small subset of patients with breast cancer, the drivers of this trend are unknown. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for and acceptability of CPM, data on patient rationales for choosing CPM, and some of the factors that might impact patient preferences. Based on the evidence, future recommendations will be provided. First, data on contralateral breast cancer risk and CPM rates and trends are addressed. After that, the evidence is structured around four main patient rationales for CPM formulated as questions that patients might ask their surgeon: Will CPM reduce mortality risk? Will CPM reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer? Can I avoid future screening with CPM? Will I have better breast symmetry after CPM? Also, three different guidelines regarding CPM will be reviewed. Studies indicate a large gap between patient preferences for radical risk reduction with CPM and the current approaches recommended by important guidelines. We suggest a strategy including shared decision-making to enhance surgeons’ communication with patients about contralateral breast cancer and treatment options, to empower patients in order to optimize the use of CPM incorporating accurate risk assessment and individual patient preferences.

•

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have increased over the last 20 years.

•

Patients may want CPM to reduce risk of contralateral breast cancer and mortality.

•

Patients do not always have the tools available to make a well-informed decision.

•

Patient and surgeon’s shared decision-making could optimize the use of CPM.