Breast reconstruction in bilateral prophylactic mastectomy patients: factors that influence decision making

Patient-reported outcomes following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: comparing implant-based with autologous breast reconstruction

Background

Since the number of breast cancer genetic gene testing is increasing, more women opt for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) followed by breast reconstruction. However, little is known about the differences in Quality of Life (QoL) after various reconstructive surgeries in this population. In this study, the long-term breast-related, body-related, and health-related QoL between immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) and autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) were compared, in women who underwent BPM.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, women who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction between January 2015 and December 2018 were invited for an online questionnaire, in which the BREAST-Q, the BODY-Q and the SF-36 were included. Women who underwent BPM and immediate breast reconstruction were included for analysis. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to adjust mean differences in patient-reported outcomes between IBBR and ABR for potential confounders.

Results

Of the included women (n = 47), 33 underwent ABR and 14 women underwent IBBR following BPM. BREAST-Q scores were in favor of the ABR group before and after adjustment, with statistically significance on Satisfaction with breasts (mean difference 15.8, p = 0.019) and Physical well-being (mean difference 13.5, p = 0.033). None of the mean differences in BODY-Q and SF-36 scores between groups, before and after adjustment, were statistically significant.

Conclusion

This study suggests that there is a higher satisfaction with breasts and better physical well-being in women who underwent immediate ABR compared to those who underwent immediate IBBR after BPM. However, these data should be interpreted carefully as a result of selection bias and a small sample size.

Level of Evidence: Level III, risk study.

Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review

For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients' experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients' experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients' perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients' participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients' experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.

A comparative study for the rate of adverse outcomes in unilateral and bilateral abdominal flap breast reconstruction: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adverse outcomes after unilateral vs bilateral breast reconstruction involve an unknown level of risk that warrants thorough investigation.

METHODS

To address this research need, PubMed, Ovid, Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched through systematically from January 1, 1990, to January 1, 2019 to retrieve the relevant studies on the risk of postoperative complications after unilateral vs bilateral abdominal flap breast reconstruction. According to the pre-designed inclusion criteria, available data were extracted from the relevant studies, and then analyzed comparatively in order to identify the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) applying either a random or a fixed effects model.

RESULTS

Eventually, 20 studies involving 8122 female subjects met the inclusion criteria. It was found that unilateral reconstruction involved a significantly higher risk of flap loss (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.21-2.00; P < .05) and fat necrosis (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.23-2.09; P < .05) compared to bilateral reconstruction, while bilateral reconstruction involved a greater risk of abdominal hernia/bulge (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.25-2.24; P < .05). The risk was found to be higher following bilateral free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flaps in comparison with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.33-5.15; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The risk of postoperative flap complications in unilateral breast reconstruction is significantly higher than that in bilateral reconstruction. Contrarily, the abdominal complications were significantly higher in the bilateral group vs the unilateral group. Meanwhile, the risk of abdominal hernia/bulge complication after bilateral breast reconstruction was significantly higher with fTRAM vs DIEP. Therefore, DIEP flaps are recommended in priority for bilateral breast reconstruction, unless specifically contraindicated.

Complication rates among women undergoing preventive mastectomy: An Austrian registry

Germline variations in the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. These variants are found in 5% of all breast cancer cases. Prophylactic mastectomy is the most effective risk-reducing method and shows high rates of patient satisfaction and acceptance. We established a registry of Austrian BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutation carriers who had undergone mastectomy for oncologic or prophylactic reasons. Data were collected on the type of operation, complications, and type of reconstructive surgery for patients between 2014 and 2017. The complication rate in patients with nipple-sparing mastectomy was significantly lower (23.1%) than in those with other types of mastectomies (60.7%; P = .005). In patients with implant-based breast reconstruction, subpectoral placement was associated with a significantly higher rate of complications than prepectoral placement (P = .025). Median implant volume was 350 cc (range: 155-650 cc), and a 100-cc increase was associated with doubling of the odds of a complication (regression coefficient = 0.007); based on this finding, some surgeons may decide on using smaller implants. In summary, we identified significant associations between the risk of complications and surgical characteristics, and found host factors like diabetes, BMI, and smoking among Austrian patients with BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 variants.

Assessing the additional surgical risk of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

There has been a sharp rise in the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy over the last decade, despite the low incidence of new primary cancers predicted for the contralateral breast. This study compares the postoperative complication rates between the diseased breast treated with mastectomy and the contralateral breast that underwent prophylactic mastectomy, followed by immediate bilateral breast implant reconstruction. We hypothesized that there will be no difference in postoperative outcomes between prophylactic and diseased groups, as the surgical approach would be comparable.

METHODS

After IRB approval, a retrospective chart review identified consecutive unilateral breast cancer patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction between May 2008 and May 2018 at a tertiary academic medical center. A paired sample t-test and a penalized logic regression model were constructed to identify relationships between breast laterality and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1117 patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction were identified. Rates of capsular contracture and infection were significantly greater in the diseased breast, while rates of revision were significantly greater in the contralateral prophylactic breast. There were no statistically significant differences between breasts in rates of explant, skin flap necrosis or hematoma. When adjusted for confounding variables, a higher infection rate was observed in the diseased breast.

CONCLUSION

This study detected significant differences in postoperative complication rates between the diseased and prophylactic breasts following bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction. Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the diseased breast compared with low rates of complications in the contralateral prophylactic breast. This information is helpful for preoperative decision making, as surgeons and patients carefully weigh the additional risks of contralateral prophylactic procedure.

Complications following immediate compared to delayed deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions

Purpose

As more breast cancer patients opt for immediate breast reconstruction, the incidence of complications should be evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the recipient-site complications and flap re-explorations of immediate compared to delayed deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstructions.

Methods

For this multicenter retrospective cohort study, the medical records of all patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction in three hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2010 and June 2017 were reviewed. Patient demographics, risk factors, timing of reconstruction, recipient-site complications, and flap re-explorations were recorded.

Results

A total of 910 DIEP flap breast reconstructions (n = 397 immediate and n = 513 delayed reconstructions) in 737 patients were included. There were no significant differences in major complications or flap re-explorations between immediate and delayed reconstructions. The total flap failure rate was 1.5 and 2.5% in the immediate and delayed group, respectively. Significantly more hematomas (OR 2.91; 95% CI 1.59–5.30; p = 0.001) and seromas (OR 3.60; 95% CI 1.14–11.4; p = 0.029) occurred in immediate reconstructions, whereas wound problems were more frequently observed in delayed reconstructions (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.27–3.11; p = 0.003). Correction for potential confounders still showed significant differences for hematoma and seroma, but no longer for wound problems (p = 0.052).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated similar incidences of major recipient-site complications and flap re-explorations between immediate and delayed DIEP flap breast reconstructions. However, hematoma and seroma occurred significantly more often in immediate reconstructions, while wound problems were more frequently observed in delayed reconstructions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-018-4695-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

State Variation in the Receipt of a Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Women Who Received a Diagnosis of Invasive Unilateral Early-Stage Breast Cancer in the United States, 2004-2012

Importance

The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPMs) among patients with invasive unilateral breast cancer has increased substantially during the past decade in the United States despite the lack of evidence for survival benefit. However, whether this trend varies by state or whether it is correlated with changes in proportions of reconstructive surgery among these patients is unclear.

Objective

To determine state variation in the temporal trend and in the proportion of CPMs among women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer treated with surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of 1.2 million women 20 years of age or older diagnosed with invasive unilateral early-stage breast cancer and treated with surgery from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2012, in 45 states and the District of Columbia as compiled by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2015, to August 31, 2016.

Exposure

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Temporal changes in the proportion of CPMs among women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer treated with surgery by age and state, overall and in relation to changes in the proportions of those who underwent reconstructive surgery.

Results

Among the 1 224 947 women with early-stage breast cancer treated with surgery, the proportion who underwent a CPM nationally increased between 2004 and 2012 from 3.6% (4013 of 113 001) to 10.4% (12 890 of 124 231) for those 45 years or older and from 10.5% (1879 of 17 862) to 33.3% (5237 of 15 745) for those aged 20 to 44 years. The increase was evident in all states, although the magnitude of the increase varied substantially across states. For example, among women 20 to 44 years of age, the proportion who underwent a CPM from 2004-2006 to 2010-2012 increased from 14.9% (317 of 2121) to 24.8% (436 of 1755) (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.46-1.89) in New Jersey compared with an increase from 9.8% (162 of 1657) to 32.2% (495 of 1538) (PR, 3.29; 95% CI, 2.80-3.88) in Virginia. In this age group, CPM proportions for the period from 2010 to 2012 were over 42% in the contiguous states of Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, and South Dakota. From 2004 to 2012, the proportion of reconstructive surgical procedures among women aged 20 to 44 years who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and received a CPM increased in many states; however, it did not correlate with the proportion of women who received a CPM.

Conclusions and Relevance

The increase in the proportion of CPMs among women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer treated with surgery varied substantially across states. Notably, in 5 contiguous Midwest states, nearly half of young women with invasive early-stage breast cancer underwent a CPM from 2010 to 2012. Future studies should examine the reasons for the geographic variation and increasing trend in the use of CPMs.

Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, and is a leading cause of cancer death among women. Prophylactic or curative mastectomy is often followed by breast reconstruction for which there are several surgical approaches that use breast implants with which surgeons can restore the natural feel, size and shape of the breast.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of breast implants on capsular contracture, surgical short- and long-term complications, postoperative satisfaction level and quality of life in women who have undergone reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register on 20 July 2015, MEDLINE (1985 to 20 July 2015), EMBASE (1985 to 20 July 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared different types of breast implants for reconstructive surgery. We considered the following types of intervention: implant envelope surfaces - texturised versus smooth; implant filler material - silicone versus saline, PVP-Hydrogel versus saline; implant shape - anatomical versus round; implant volume - variable versus fixed; brands - different implant manufacturing companies and implant generation (fifth versus previous generations).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with 202 participants met the inclusion criteria. The women participants were typically in their 50s, and the majority of them (about 82%) received reconstructive surgery following breast cancer, while the others had reconstructive surgery after prophylactic mastectomy. The studies were heterogenous in terms of implant comparisons, which prevented us from pooling the data.The studies were judged as being at an unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias items owing to poor quality of reporting in the trial publications. Three of the five RCTs were judged to be at high risk of attrition bias, and one at high risk of detection bias.Textured silicone versus smooth silicone implants: textured implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to smooth implants (capsular contracture: risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.71; 1 study, 20 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Silicone versus saline implants: saline-filled implants performed better than silicone-filled implants for some outcomes; specifically, they produced less severe capsular contracture (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 8.51; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence) and increased patient satisfaction (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1 study, 58 participants; very low quality evidence). However reintervention was significantly more frequent in the saline-filled implant group than in the silicone-filled group (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.43; 1 study, 60 participants; very low quality evidence).Poly(N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) hydrogel-filled (PVP-hydrogel) versus saline-filled implants: PVP-hydrogel-filled implants were associated with worse outcomes when compared to saline-filled implants (capsular contracture: RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.83 to 14.83; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.21 to 21.39; 1 study, 41 participants; very low quality evidence).Anatomical versus round implants: anatomical implants were associated with worse outcomes than round implants (capsular contracture: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.15; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; short-term complications: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.58; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence; reintervention: RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.43; 1 study, 36 participants; very low quality evidence). No results in this comparison were statistically significant.Variable-volume versus fixed-volume implants: data about one-stage reconstruction using variable-volume implants were compared with data about fixed-volume implants positioned during the second surgical procedure of two-stage reconstructions. Fixed-volume implant reconstructions were possibly associated with a greater number of women reporting that their reconstruction corresponded with expected results (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) and fewer reinterventions (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.82 to 26.89; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence) when compared to variable-volume implants. A higher patient satisfaction level (rated from 1 to 6, with 1 being very bad and 6 being very good) was found with the fixed-volume implants for overall aesthetic result (mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.61; 1 study, 40 participants; very low quality evidence).There were no studies that examined the effects of recent (fifth) generation silicone implants versus previous generations or different implant manufacturing companies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the central role of breast reconstruction in women with breast cancer, the best implants to use in reconstructive surgery have been studied rarely in the context of RCTs. Furthermore the quality of these studies and the overall evidence they provide is largely unsatisfactory. Some of our results can be interpreted as early evidence of potentially large differences between different surgical approaches, which should be confirmed in new high-quality RCTs that include a larger number of women. These days - even after a few million women have had breasts reconstructed - surgeons cannot inform women about the risks and complications of different implant-based breast reconstructive options on the basis of results derived from RCTs.

Complications in unilateral versus bilateral deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstructions: A multicentre study

BACKGROUND

The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is the first choice for autologous breast reconstruction. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to analyse the recipient- and donor-site complications and compare them between unilateral and bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstructions.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2014, 530 DIEP flap reconstructions were performed in 426 consecutive patients in three Dutch hospitals. Major and minor complications were categorised into recipient- and donor-site complications. Post-operative flap re-explorations were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the total 530 DIEP flap reconstructions performed (322 unilateral, 104 bilateral), recipient-site complications were major in 9.8% and minor in 20.2%. The patients developed fat necrosis (unilateral 14.0% vs. bilateral 7.7%; OR 1.950; 95% CI 1.071-3.550; p = 0.027) and infection (unilateral 5.6% vs. bilateral 1.9%; OR 3.020; 95% CI 1.007-9.052; p = 0.039) at the recipient site significantly more frequently in the unilateral DIEP flap reconstructions. The donor-site complications were major in 0.9% and minor in 19.5% of the cases. Body mass index (BMI) was significantly associated with complications (donor site: OR 1.137; 95% CI 1.075-1.201; p < 0.001, recipient site: OR 1.073; 95% CI 1.009-1.142; p = 0.026). Flap re-explorations were performed in 5.7% (n = 30) of the cases. Total flap loss occurred in 3.0% (n = 16) of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstructions can be performed with the same percentage of complications and re-explorations as unilateral reconstructions and even result in less fat necrosis and infection at the recipient site. Higher BMIs are significantly associated with recipient- and donor-site complications.

Changes in use of autologous and prosthetic postmastectomy reconstruction after medicaid expansion in New York state

BACKGROUND

With Medicaid expansion beginning in 2014, it is important to understand the effects of access to reconstructive services for new beneficiaries. The authors assessed changes in use of breast cancer reconstruction for Medicaid beneficiaries after expansion in New York State in 2001.

METHODS

The authors used the State Inpatient Database for New York (1998 to 2006) for all patients aged 19 to 64 years who underwent breast reconstruction. An interrupted time series design with linear regression modeling evaluated the effect of Medicaid expansion on the proportion of breast reconstruction patients that were Medicaid beneficiaries.

RESULTS

The proportion of breast reconstructions provided to Medicaid beneficiaries increased by 0.28 percent per quarter after expansion (p < 0.001), resulting in a 5.5 percent increase above predicted trajectory without expansion. This corresponds to a population-adjusted increase of 1.8 Medicaid cases per 1 million population per quarter. On subgroup analysis, there was no significant increase in the proportion of autologous reconstructions (p = 0.4); however, the proportion of prosthetic reconstructions for Medicaid beneficiaries had a significant increase of 0.41 percent per quarter (p < 0.001), resulting in a 7.5 percent cumulative increase. This indicates that 135 additional prosthetic reconstruction operations were provided to Medicaid beneficiaries within 5 years of expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons increased the volume of breast reconstructions provided to Medicaid beneficiaries after expansion. However, there are disparities between autologous and prosthetic reconstruction. If Medicaid expansion is to provide comprehensive care, with adequate access to all reconstructive options, these disparities must be addressed.

Delayed autologous breast reconstruction: factors which influence patient decision making

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction timing continues to be controversial. The purpose of this study was to examine delayed autologous breast reconstruction at a center favouring immediate reconstruction to better understand factors driving the decision to delay reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all free autologous breast reconstruction patients between 2005 and 2009, focussing on ethnicity, cancer stage, unilateral or bilateral reconstructions, initial management, distance from the institution, and average income. Delayed reconstructions were compared to immediate reconstructions. All delayed reconstructions were surveyed to examine treatment and reconstruction decisions and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of 709 patients, 169 (24%) underwent delayed treatment. Delayed reconstruction patients had higher cancer stages (p < 0.001), higher rates of pre-reconstruction radiation therapy (64% vs. 20%, p < 0.0001) and higher rates of unilateral reconstruction (64% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Seventy delayed patients responded to the survey (41%), with 75% having had their initial mastectomy at an outside health system. Only 51% discussed immediate reconstruction prior to electing delayed treatment and 41% had no discussion regarding advantages or disadvantages to reconstructive options. Approximately 30% noted no choice in their reconstructive timing. Forty five percent would elect immediate reconstruction if given the option.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that women may not be receiving all available information prior to undergoing mastectomy for initial breast cancer treatment. As a significant portion of women electing delayed reconstruction would elect immediate autologous reconstruction if given the option again, there is room for improvement in pre-operative patient education and in the education of our oncology colleagues.

Factors associated with surgical decision making in women with early-stage breast cancer: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations for surgical management of early-stage breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with postoperative irradiation. However, studies show that mastectomy is still being used by women with early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Review of the medical literature published between 2000 and 2010 to determine the factors associated with the decision of patients for surgical treatment in early-stage breast cancer.

RESULTS

The following patient characteristics affect the surgical decision-making process in early-stage breast cancer: age, socioeconomic factors, geographic area in which the patient lives, proximity to a radiation therapy center, testing for BRCA gene, breast imaging, and decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Of increasing importance in the decision making about treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer are the woman's perception of having a surgical choice and the influence of that choice on postoperative quality of life.

Knowledge, attitude and practice of prophylactic mastectomy among patients and relations attending a surgical outpatient clinic

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is uncommon in our practice. This study documents the knowledge and attitude of patients and relation to prophylactic mastectomy.

METHODS

Adults attending surgical outpatient unit were interviewed. Biodata, awareness of breast cancer, and attitude towards prophylactic mastectomy were inquired about and documented.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty eight (99 men and 149 women) were involved. Most, 75.6%, were age bracket 20-29 years and 77.2% had tertiary education. Only 26 (10.4%) of the respondents had previous history of breast diseases. 96.4% were aware of cancer of the breast while 113 (45.2%) of them were aware that breast cancer gene can be inherited from parents and 60 (24.2%) believe cancer of the breast can affect women with strong positive family history. Only 64 (25.6%) of them would agree to prophylactic mastectomy if found necessary. Reasons given for possible refusal to consent to PM include effect on beauty, (40%), psychological effect, (22.8%), non-curing of disease, (18%), possible surgical complications, (7.2%), and financial cost, (1.2%). Presence of unilateral breast cancer and high risk status constituted about 71% of suggested possible indications for PM while presence of any breast disease was suggested by only 7.3% of respondents. The profession or education of respondents did not have significance on their acceptance or rejection of PM.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of prophylactic mastectomy is low among patients in this study. Education about breast cancer and methods of prevention need to be improved.