Risk reducing mastectomy, breast reconstruction and patient satisfaction in Norwegian BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Awareness and Candidacy for Endocrine Prevention and Risk Reducing Mastectomy in Unaffected High-Risk Women Referred for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Primary prevention of breast cancer in women at elevated risk includes several strategies such as endocrine prevention and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). The objective of this study was to evaluate awareness of different preventive strategies across high-risk subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women referred for high risk evaluation between 2020 and 2023 completed an initial risk-assessment questionnaire that included questions around perceived lifetime risk and consideration of preventive strategies. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-squared tests were used to compare differences across different high-risk subgroups.

RESULTS

482 women with a median age of 43 years (20-79 years) met inclusion criteria; 183 (38.0%) germline pathogenic variant carriers (GPV), 90 (18.7%) with high-risk lesions (HRL) on breast biopsy, and 209 (43.4%) with strong family history (FH) without a known genetic predisposition. Most high-risk women reported that they had considered increased screening and surveillance (83.7%) and lifestyle strategies (80.6%), while fewer patients had considered RRM (39.8%) and endocrine prevention (27.0%). Prior to initial consultation, RRM was more commonly considered in GPV carriers (59.4%) relative to those with HRL (33.3%) or strong FH (26.3%, p < 0.001). Based on current guidelines, 206 (43%) patients were deemed eligible for endocrine prevention, including 80.5% with HRL and 39.0% with strong FH. Prior consideration of endocrine prevention was highest in patients with HRL and significantly lower in those with strong FH (47.2% HRL versus 31.1% GPV versus 18.7% FH, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Endocrine prevention is the least considered preventive option for high-risk women, despite eligibility in a significant proportion of those presenting with HRL or strong FH.

Concerns and Expectations of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Women with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC) carriers face complex decisions, which might affect their fertility and body image. Using an anonymous 40-items questionnaire we evaluated the expectations and concerns about Risk-Reducing Surgery (RRS) in 204 carriers. Participants are well-informed about the options to manage cancer risk, and women with previous cancer are more concerned with screening failure. Satisfaction with RR Mastectomy is high, even if many carriers are unsatisfied with reconstructed breast feel and nipple-areola complex tactile sensation and those with previous breast cancer report a change in their sexual habits. The decrease of libido and vaginal dryness are the most complained symptoms after RR Salpingo-Oophorectomy. Nevertheless, most carriers would choose RRS again, due to cancer risk or screening-related stress reduction. Women who deferred RRS are more afraid of menopausal symptoms and cancer risk than those who had undergone or declined surgery. Women who declined RRS feel well-informed and trust screening procedures. In conclusion, HBOC carriers consider themselves well-informed and able to choose the best option for their condition, would choose RRS again because of cancer risk and screening-related stress reduction, and those who delay RRS face a higher preoperative level of concern and need support.

Different Patterns of Risk Reducing Decisions in Affected or Unaffected BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate decision patterns to reduce the risks of BRCArelated breast and gynecologic cancers in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. We found a change in risk-reducing (RR) management patterns after December 2012, when the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) of Korea began to pay for BRCA testing and riskreducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in pathogenic-variant carriers.

Materials and Methods

The study group consisted of 992 patients, including 705 with breast cancer (BC), 23 with ovarian cancer (OC), 10 with both, and 254 relatives of high-risk patients who underwent BRCA testing at the National Cancer Center of Korea from January 2008 to December 2016.We analyzed patterns of and factors in RR management.

Results

Of the 992 patients, 220 (22.2%) were carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. About 92.3% (203/220) had a family history of BC and/or OC,which significantly differed between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (p < 0.001). All 41 male carriers chose surveillance. Of the 179 female carriers, 59 of the 83 carriers (71.1%) with BC and the 39 of 79 unaffected carriers (49.4%) underwent RR management. None of the carriers affected with OC underwent RR management. Of the management types, RRSO had the highest rate (42.5%) of patient choice. The rate of RR surgery was significantly higher after 2013 than before 2013 (46.3% [74/160] vs. 31.6% [6/19], p < 0.001).

Conclusion

RRSO was the preferred management for carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. The most important factors in treatment choice were NHIS reimbursement and/or the severity of illness.

Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased interest in RRM as a method of preventing breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To determine whether risk-reducing mastectomy reduces death rates from any cause in women who have never had breast cancer and in women who have a history of breast cancer in one breast, and (ii) to examine the effect of risk-reducing mastectomy on other endpoints, including breast cancer incidence, breast cancer mortality, disease-free survival, physical morbidity, and psychosocial outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 July 2016. We included studies in English.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included women at risk for breast cancer in at least one breast. Interventions included all types of mastectomy performed for the purpose of preventing breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently abstracted data from each report. We summarized data descriptively; quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient reporting. We analyzed data separately for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). Four review authors assessed the methodological quality to determine whether or not the methods used sufficiently minimized selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias.

MAIN RESULTS

All 61 included studies were observational studies with some methodological limitations; randomized trials were absent. The studies presented data on 15,077 women with a wide range of risk factors for breast cancer, who underwent RRM.Twenty-one BRRM studies looking at the incidence of breast cancer or disease-specific mortality, or both, reported reductions after BRRM, particularly for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Twenty-six CRRM studies consistently reported reductions in incidence of contralateral breast cancer but were inconsistent about improvements in disease-specific survival. Seven studies attempted to control for multiple differences between intervention groups and showed no overall survival advantage for CRRM. Another study showed significantly improved survival following CRRM, but after adjusting for bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (BRRSO), the CRRM effect on all-cause mortality was no longer significant.Twenty studies assessed psychosocial measures; most reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision to have RRM but greater variation in satisfaction with cosmetic results. Worry over breast cancer was significantly reduced after BRRM when compared both to baseline worry levels and to the groups who opted for surveillance rather than BRRM, but there was diminished satisfaction with body image and sexual feelings.Seventeen case series reporting on adverse events from RRM with or without reconstruction reported rates of unanticipated reoperations from 4% in those without reconstruction to 64% in participants with reconstruction.In women who have had cancer in one breast, removing the other breast may reduce the incidence of cancer in that other breast, but there is insufficient evidence that this improves survival because of the continuing risk of recurrence or metastases from the original cancer. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While published observational studies demonstrated that BRRM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies are suggested. BRRM should be considered only among those at high risk of disease, for example, BRCA1/2 carriers. CRRM was shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence that CRRM improves survival, and studies that control for multiple confounding variables are recommended. It is possible that selection bias in terms of healthier, younger women being recommended for or choosing CRRM produces better overall survival numbers for CRRM. Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention when considering RRM.

Feasibility study of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy with breast reconstruction for breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations in Japan

BACKGROUND

Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) for breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations has been reported to not only reduce breast cancer incidence but also to improve survival. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend providing CRRM to women with BRCA mutations who desire CRRM after risk-reduction counseling. However, in Japan, CRRM cannot be performed generally because it is not covered by health insurance. Thus, we conducted a feasibility study to confirm the safety of CRRM.

METHODS

CRRM with bilateral breast reconstructions were performed for breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations. The primary endpoint was early adverse events within 3 months, and secondary endpoints were late adverse events.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and November 2016, ten patients were enrolled. The median age was 37.5 years, and five of the patients had the BRCA1 mutation while five had the BRCA2 mutation. Six patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eight patients selected silicone breast implants, and two patients selected transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap reconstruction. Pathological findings showed no evidence of occult breast cancers in any of the patients. At a median of 25.5 months follow-up time, CRRM-related early adverse events were hematoma (subsequently removed by re-operation; grade 2, n = 1), wound infection (grade 2, n = 1), skin ulceration (grade 1, n = 2) and wound pain (grade 1, n = 1). Overall, there were no grade 3 or more severe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that CRRM with reconstruction could be performed safely.

A systematic review of women's satisfaction and regret following risk-reducing mastectomy

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, to describe patient satisfaction and regret associated with risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM), and the patient-reported factors associated with these among women at high risk of developing breast cancer.

METHODS

Studies were identified using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo databases (1995-2016). Data were extracted and crosschecked for accuracy. Article quality was assessed using standardised criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 1657 unique articles identified, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria (n=23 quantitative studies, n=3 qualitative studies, n=4 mixed-method studies). Studies included were cross-sectional (n=23) or retrospective (n=7). General satisfaction with RRM, decision satisfaction and aesthetic satisfaction were generally high, although some women expressed regret around their decision and dissatisfaction with their appearance. Factors associated with both patient satisfaction and regret included: post-operative complications, body image changes, psychological distress and perceived inadequacy of information.

CONCLUSION

While satisfaction with RRM was generally high, some women had regrets and expressed dissatisfaction. Future research is needed to further explore RRM, and to investigate current satisfaction trends given the ongoing improvements to surgical and clinical practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Offering pre-operative preparation, decisional support and continuous psychological input may help to facilitate satisfaction with this complex procedure.

Oncological safety of prophylactic breast surgery: skin-sparing and nipple-sparing versus total mastectomy

Women with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation and others with a high breast cancer risk may opt for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. To allow for immediate breast reconstruction the skin envelope is left in situ with or without the nipple-areola complex (NAC). Although possibly leading to a more natural aesthetic outcome than the conventional total mastectomy, so-called skin-sparing mastectomies (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM) may leave some breast glandular tissue in situ. The oncological risk associated with remaining breast glandular tissue is unclear. We present a case of primary breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy followed by a review of the literature on remaining breast glandular tissue after various mastectomy techniques and oncological safety of prophylactic mastectomies.

Quality of life among patients after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) is effective in reducing the risk of breast cancer in women with a well-defined family history of breast cancer or in women with BRCA 1 or 2 mutations. Evaluating patient-reported outcomes following BPM are thus essential for evaluating success of BPM from patient's perspective. Our systematic review aimed to: (1) identify studies describing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients following BPM with or without reconstruction; (2) assess the effect of BPM with or without reconstruction on HRQOL; and (3) identify predictors of HRQOL post-BPM.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature using the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 1082 studies; 22 of these studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Post-BPM, patients are satisfied with the outcomes and report high psychosocial well-being and positive body image. Sexual well-being and somatosensory function are most negatively affected. Vulnerability, psychological distress and preoperative cancer distress are significant negative predictors of quality of life and body image post-BPM.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality data on outcomes of different HRQOL domains post-BPM. Future studies should strive to use validated and breast-specific PRO instruments for measuring HRQOL. This will facilitate shared decision-making by enabling surgeons to provide evidence-based answers to women contemplating BPM.

Resource implications of risk-reducing mastectomy and reconstruction

AIM

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is on the increase, now frequently combined with breast reconstruction (BR). However, the resource implications associated with bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction are unknown. This study assessed the overall cost of performing risk-reducing surgery.

METHODS

All cases of RRM and BR performed between 1991 and 2011 at this hospital were identified from a prospectively collected database. All patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy were included, when at least one mastectomy was risk-reducing. Overall treatment costs for all surgical procedures, complications, revisional procedures and outpatient attendances were calculated and compared to the National Tariff allowed. Mann-Whitney U and Fischer's exact tests were used to calculate levels of significance.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent bilateral mastectomy and BR (median follow up 20 [range 1-106] months), 72 were Latissimus Dorsi reconstructions (LDR) and 28 were Subpectoral reconstructions (SPR). LDR took longer than SPR (p = 0.001), with a greater length of stay (p = 0.024). Nine percent of patients returned to theatre for early complications, but the type of BR did not influence the early complication rate (LDR versus SPR, p = 0.345) or the need for additional unplanned procedures (LDR versus SPR, p = 0.671). The overall mean cost for bilateral RRM and BR was £14,797 per patient. The inpatient cost for bilateral RRM and LDR was £10,082 compared with £5,905 SPR. Both procedures exceeded the £5,697 tariff allowed in the UK.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral RRM and BR is a safe procedure, but the resource implications are considerable and exceed the tariff allowed, particularly when performing more complex techniques.