1
|
Dubsky P, Jackisch C, Im SA, Hunt KK, Li CF, Unger S, Paluch-Shimon S. BRCA genetic testing and counseling in breast cancer: how do we meet our patients' needs? NPJ Breast Cancer 2024; 10:77. [PMID: 39237557 PMCID: PMC11377442 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-024-00686-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Accepted: 08/19/2024] [Indexed: 09/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that have been linked to inherited susceptibility of breast cancer. Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (gBRCAm) are clinically relevant for treatment selection in breast cancer because they confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. BRCA1/2 mutation status may also impact decisions on other systemic therapies, risk-reducing measures, and choice of surgery. Consequently, demand for gBRCAm testing has increased. Several barriers to genetic testing exist, including limited access to testing facilities, trained counselors, and psychosocial support, as well as the financial burden of testing. Here, we describe current implications of gBRCAm testing for patients with breast cancer, summarize current approaches to gBRCAm testing, provide potential solutions to support wider adoption of mainstreaming testing practices, and consider future directions of testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Dubsky
- Breast and Tumor Center, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, Lucerne, Switzerland.
- University of Lucerne, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Lucerne, Switzerland.
| | - Christian Jackisch
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Center, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach, Germany
| | - Seock-Ah Im
- Seoul National University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Chien-Feng Li
- National Institute of Cancer Research, National Health Research Institutes, Tainan, Taiwan
| | | | - Shani Paluch-Shimon
- Hadassah University Hospital & Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yao M, Peng P, Chen L, Xu Z. Impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on survival outcomes in patients with unilateral breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci 2024; 40:1873-1881. [PMID: 39281219 PMCID: PMC11395362 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.40.8.9708] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2024] [Revised: 02/23/2024] [Accepted: 05/30/2024] [Indexed: 09/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective To synthesize contemporary evidence of the impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) on survival outcomes in patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Methods PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases were searched for observational studies published up to November 15, 2023. Random-effects model was used to obtain pooled effect estimates that were reported as hazards ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), recurrence free survival (RFS) and risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Results Twenty-one studies were included. Most studies had a retrospective design. CPM was associated with significant improvement of OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.85), BCCS (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.90), and RFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.86) and significantly reduced risk of CBC (HR 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.09) in patients with UBC. No evidence of publication bias was detected. Conclusion Our results provide strong evidence supporting the positive impact of CPM on survival outcomes in patients with UBC. Further research and long-term follow-up studies are warranted to validate these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Yao
- Min Yao, Department of Breast Surgery, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China
| | - Puchao Peng
- Puchao Peng, Department of Breast Surgery, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China
| | - Lijie Chen
- Lijie Chen, Department of Breast Surgery, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China
| | - Zhouming Xu
- Zhouming Xu, Department of Breast Surgery, Huzhou Maternity & Child Health Care Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang Province 313000, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vuong B, Jacinto AI, Chang SB, Kuehner GE, Savitz AC. Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients. Clin Breast Cancer 2024:S1526-8209(24)00148-4. [PMID: 38972829 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2023] [Revised: 05/28/2024] [Accepted: 06/03/2024] [Indexed: 07/09/2024]
Abstract
Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases annually are diagnosed in young women, and this continues to be the leading cause of death in women age 20 to 49. Young, premenopausal breast cancer patients present with more advanced stages and with a higher proportion of aggressive subtypes such as triple negative and HER2-enriched tumors. Recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age threshold to initiate screening mammograms to age 40 to aid in earlier detection. Young age at diagnosis increases the likelihood for a pathogenic mutation, and genetic testing is recommended for all patients age 50 and younger. This population is often underrepresented in landmark clinical trials, and data is extrapolated for the treatment of young women with breast cancer. Despite there being no survival benefit to more extensive surgical treatments, such as mastectomy or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, many patients opt against breast conservation. Young patients with breast cancer face issues related to treatment toxicities, potential overtreatment of their disease, mental health, sexual health, and fertility preservation. This unique population requires a multidisciplinary care team of physicians, surgeons, genetic counselors, fertility specialists, mental health professionals, physical therapists, and dieticians to provide individualized, comprehensive care. Our aim is to (1) provide a narrative review of retrospective studies, relevant society guidelines, and clinical trials focused on the contemporary treatment and management of YBC patients and (2) discuss important nuances in their care as a guide for members of their multidisciplinary treatment team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke Vuong
- Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente South Sacramento Medical Center, Sacramento, CA.
| | - Ana I Jacinto
- Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA
| | - Sharon B Chang
- Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center, Santa Clara, CA
| | - Gillian E Kuehner
- Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Alison C Savitz
- Department of Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Walnut Creek Medical Center, Walnut Creek, CA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Singh P, Agnese D, Amin M, Barrio AV, Botty Van den Bruele A, Burke E, Danforth DN, Dirbas FM, Eladoumikdachi F, Kantor O, Kumar S, Lee MC, Matsen C, Nguyen TT, Ozmen T, Park KU, Plichta JK, Reyna C, Showalter SL, Styblo T, Tranakas N, Weiss A, Laronga C, Boughey J. Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Contralateral Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:2212-2223. [PMID: 38261126 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-14893-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Puneet Singh
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | | | | | - Andrea V Barrio
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA
| | | | - Erin Burke
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Olga Kantor
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shicha Kumar
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | - Tolga Ozmen
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ko Un Park
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Anna Weiss
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Paganini A, Westesson LM, Hansson E, Karlsson SA. Women's decision process when actively choosing to 'go flat' after breast cancer: a constructivist grounded theory study. BMC Womens Health 2024; 24:178. [PMID: 38491353 PMCID: PMC10941362 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03015-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 03/06/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aims to describe a conceptual model that could illuminate the decision process women go through when choosing to go flat on one or both sides due to breast cancer. METHODS A qualitative design, with constructivist grounded theory was used. Eighteen women were individually interviewed, digitally or by telephone, until saturation was reached. Data were analysed using a constant comparative iterative method in accordance with grounded theory. By examining the text data to identify the decision process for going flat and rejecting reconstructive surgery open coding was obtained. As the study proceeded patterns were explored and categories developed into a core category. RESULTS The overall decision process for women choosing to go flat on one or both sides emerged in three phases: Phase 1, where the women are forced to "Face the cancer", Phase 2 comprising "Reflections on health and motivation" and Phase 3, described as "Hobson's choice". The fundament of the decision process was found in the core category "Establishing and safeguarding the chosen self". CONCLUSIONS The decision process involved in actively going flat and rejecting reconstructive surgery is founded in the individual woman's motivations, such as view of femininity and apprehensions about the offered reconstructive surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Paganini
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sahlgrenska University hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Institution for Health and Care Sciences at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Institution for Clinical Sciences at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
| | - Linda Myrin Westesson
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Institution for Health and Care Sciences at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Emma Hansson
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sahlgrenska University hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Institution for Clinical Sciences at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Susanne Ahlstedt Karlsson
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Institution for Health and Care Sciences at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Region Västra Götaland, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Steadman JA, Hoskin TL, Klassen C, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Piltin MA, Mrdutt MM, Johnson JE, Hieken TJ. Assessment of the effect of the American Society of Breast Surgery guidelines on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates for unilateral breast cancer. Surgery 2024; 175:677-686. [PMID: 37863697 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In July 2016, the American Society of Breast Surgeons published guidelines discouraging contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer. We incorporated these into practice with structured patient counseling and aimed to assess the effect of this initiative on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. METHODS We evaluated female patients with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy at our institution from January 2011 to November 2022. Variables associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and trends over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ2 analysis as appropriate. RESULTS Among 3,208 patients, (median age 54 years) 1,366 (43%) had a unilateral mastectomy, and 1,842 (57%) also had a concomitant contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Across all patients, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates significantly decreased post-implementation from 2017 to 2019 (55%) vs 2015 to 2016 (62%) (P = .01) but increased from 2020 to 2022 (61%). Immediate breast reconstruction rate was 70% overall (81% with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and 56% without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, P < .001). Younger age, White race, mutation status, and earlier stage were also associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Genetic testing increased from 27% pre-guideline to 74% 2020 to 2022, as did the proportion of patients with a pathogenic variant (4% pre-guideline vs 11% from 2020-2022, P < .001), of whom 91% had a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among tested patients without a pathogenic variant and patients not tested, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates declined from 78% to 67% and 48% to 38% pre -and post-guidelines, respectively, P < .001. CONCLUSION Implementation of specific patient counseling was effective in decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. While recognizing that patient choice plays a significant role in the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, further educational efforts are warranted to affect contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates, particularly in the setting of negative genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica A Steadman
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Tanya L Hoskin
- Division of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Amy C Degnim
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mara A Piltin
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Mary M Mrdutt
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jeffrey E Johnson
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Clegg DJ, Whiteaker EN, Salomon BJ, Gee KN, Porter CG, Mazonas TW, Heidel RE, Brooks AJ, Bell JL, Boukovalas S, Lloyd JM. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in a rural population: A single-institution experience. Surg Open Sci 2024; 18:70-77. [PMID: 38435489 PMCID: PMC10905041 DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2024.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Revised: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The incidence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer (UBC) has continued to increase, despite an absent survival benefit except in populations at highest risk for developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). CPM rates may be higher in rural populations but causes remain unclear. A study performed at our institution previously found that 21.8 % of patients with UBC underwent CPM from 2000 to 2009. This study aimed to evaluate the CPM trend at a single institution serving a rural population and identify the CPM rate in average-risk patients. Methods Retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomies for UBC at our institution from 2017 to 2021 was performed. Analysis utilized frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, chi-square, and independent sample t-tests. Results A total of 438 patients were included, of whom 64.4 % underwent bilateral mastectomy for UBC (CPM). Patients who underwent CPM were significantly younger, underwent genetic testing, had germline pathogenic variants, had a family history of breast cancer, had smaller tumors, underwent reconstruction, and had more wound infections. Of CPM patients, 50.4 % had no identifiable factors for increased risk of developing CBC. Conclusions The rate of CPM in a rural population at a single institution increased from 21.8 % to 64.4 % over two decades, with an average-risk CPM rate of 50.4 %. Those that undergo CPM are more likely to undergo reconstruction and have more wound infections. Identifying characteristics of patients undergoing CPM in a rural population and the increased associated risks allows for a better understanding of this trend to guide conversations with patients. Key message This study demonstrates that the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancers performed at a single institution serving a largely rural population has nearly tripled over the last two decades, with half of these patients having no factors that increase the risk for developing contralateral breast cancers. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was significantly associated with smaller tumors, younger age, genetic testing, germline pathogenic variants, family history of breast cancer, breast reconstruction, and increased wound infections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devin J. Clegg
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Erica N. Whiteaker
- University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Memphis, TN, United States of America
| | - Brett J. Salomon
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Kaylan N. Gee
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Christopher G. Porter
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Thomas W. Mazonas
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - R. Eric Heidel
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Biostatistics, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Ashton J. Brooks
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - John L. Bell
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Stefanos Boukovalas
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| | - Jillian M. Lloyd
- University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Knoxville, TN, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kuijlaars ZMA, Hillberg NS, Kooreman L, Severens Rijvers CAH, Qiu SS. Breast Cancer in the Tissue of the Contralateral Breast Reduction. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:497. [PMID: 38339249 PMCID: PMC10854570 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2023] [Revised: 01/08/2024] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide, and the increasing number of survivors is due to advances in early diagnosis and treatment efficacy. Consequently, the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC) among these survivors has become a concern. While surgical intervention with lumpectomy is a widely used primary approach for breast cancer, post-operative breast asymmetry is a potential concern. Many women opt for symmetrizing reduction procedures to improve aesthetic outcomes and quality of life. However, despite careful radiological screening, there is a chance of accidentally finding CBC. To address this, tissue excised during symmetrizing surgery is examined pathologically. In some cases, CBC or in situ lesions have been incidentally discovered in these specimens, prompting a need for a more thorough examination. Resection in pieces and the absence of surgical marking and pathological inking of the margin have made it challenging to precisely identify tumor location and assess tumor size and margin status, hampering adjuvant treatment decisions. A new protocol introduced in July 2022 aims to enhance the precision of CBC diagnosis, allowing for tailored treatment plans, including re-excision, systemic adjuvant therapy, or radiation therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoë M. A. Kuijlaars
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; (Z.M.A.K.); (N.S.H.)
| | - Nadine S. Hillberg
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; (Z.M.A.K.); (N.S.H.)
| | - Loes Kooreman
- Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; (L.K.); (C.A.H.S.R.)
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Carmen A. H. Severens Rijvers
- Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; (L.K.); (C.A.H.S.R.)
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Shan Shan Qiu
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands; (Z.M.A.K.); (N.S.H.)
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wondimagegnehu A, Teferra S, Assefa M, Zebrack B, Addissie A, Kantelhardt EJ. "How can a woman live without having a breast?": challenges related to mastectomy in Ethiopia. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:60. [PMID: 38212706 PMCID: PMC10782697 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11801-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although mastectomy is the standard treatment modality for breast cancer patients in Ethiopia, our previous study revealed that one in five patients do not receive the recommended procedure, half due to patient refusal or lack of returning to the hospital. Therefore, this study aimed to explore reasons for refusing mastectomy and identify challenges among breast cancer patients in Ethiopia. METHODS An explorative qualitative study was conducted in four hospitals located in the towns of Woliso, Butajira, Hossana, and Assela. A total of 14 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with breast cancer patients, patient relatives, and health professionals. Four semi-structured interview guides were used to facilitate the IDIs and FDGs. All recorded IDIs and FGDs were transcribed and translated verbatim and entered in NVivo 12 software. Emerging ideas were categorised and explained using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS Our participants reported that particularly elderly and very young women refuse to have mastectomy. The main reasons identified in this study were summarised into six themes: (i) fear of the surgical procedure, (ii) religious beliefs and practice, (iii) utilisation of traditional treatments, (iv) in relation to having a baby and breastfeeding their children (young patients often request to remove only the lump, leaving their breast tissue intact), (v) lack of awareness about the disease, and (vi) sociocultural factors and advice from the community that influence women, since breasts are considered an attribute of femininity, beauty, and motherhood. In addition, knowing someone who died after mastectomy emerged as a main reason for not having breast cancer surgery. CONCLUSIONS High refusal rate for mastectomy has direct implication on increased breast cancer mortality. Hence, expansion of radiotherapy service is instrumental to initiate breast-conserving surgery as an alternative surgical procedure, especially for young women with early-stage breast cancer. Involving religious leaders, traditional healers, and breast cancer survivors could be an effective strategy to persuade newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Addressing individual patient psychosocial needs and preferences may substantially improve retention of breast cancer patients in the health system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abigiya Wondimagegnehu
- Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
- Global Health Working Group, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany.
| | - Solomon Teferra
- Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - Mathewos Assefa
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - Bradley Zebrack
- School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Adamu Addissie
- Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
- Global Health Working Group, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany
| | - Eva J Kantelhardt
- Global Health Working Group, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany
- Department of Gynecology, Martin-Luther-University, Halle (Saale), Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Aitken GL, Samuels S, Gannon CJ, Llaguna OH. Influence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on textbook outcome attainment at time of mastectomy. Am J Surg 2024; 227:111-116. [PMID: 37798148 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Revised: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 09/30/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) and its impact on overall survival (OS) among patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) following modified radical mastectomy (MRM) versus MRM with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (MRM + CPM). METHODS The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with IDC who underwent MRM and MRM + CPM. TOO was defined as: resection with negative margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, length of stay ≤50th percentile, and no 30-day readmission or mortality. RESULTS 87,573 patients were identified, of which 14.3% underwent MRM + CPM. Logistic regression models revealed that MRM + CPM is independently associated with a reduced likelihood of achieving TOO (AOR = 0.71; P < 0.001). MRM patients who achieved TOO had a higher median OS compared to those who did not (164.6 vs.142.2 months, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS MRM + CPM is associated with a lower incidence of TOO attainment compared to MRM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriela L Aitken
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, FL, USA
| | - Shenae Samuels
- Office of Human Research, Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, FL, USA
| | | | - Omar H Llaguna
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, FL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Chen JC, Stover DG, Ballinger TJ, Bazan JG, Schneider BP, Andersen BL, Carson WE, Obeng-Gyasi S. Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer: from Detection to Treatment. Curr Oncol Rep 2024; 26:10-20. [PMID: 38100011 DOI: 10.1007/s11912-023-01472-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Update on current racial disparities in the detection and treatment of breast cancer. RECENT FINDINGS Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among Black and Hispanic women. Mammography rates among Black and Hispanic women have surpassed those among White women, with studies now advocating for earlier initiation of breast cancer screening in Black women. Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian and Alaskan Native women continue to experience delays in diagnosis and time to treatment. Further, racial discrepancies in receipt of guideline-concordant care, access to genetic testing and surgical reconstruction persist. Disparities in the initiation, completion, toxicity, and efficacy of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and targeted drug therapy remain for racially marginalized women. Efforts to evaluate the impact of race and ethnicity across the breast cancer spectrum are increasing, but knowledge gaps remain and further research is necessary to reduce the disparity gap.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Chen
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Daniel G Stover
- Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Tarah J Ballinger
- Department of Internal Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Jose G Bazan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Bryan P Schneider
- Department of Internal Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - William E Carson
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Samilia Obeng-Gyasi
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
- The Ohio State University, N924 Doan Hall, 410 West 10th, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Lindenblatt N, Leuenberger NJ, Harder Y, Kappos EA, Pusic AL, Shaw J, Giovanoli P, Fontein DBY. Measuring quality of care in autologous breast reconstruction: a Delphi consensus. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2024; 50:107254. [PMID: 38056020 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2023] [Revised: 10/15/2023] [Accepted: 10/29/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
Measuring and benchmarking quality of care in surgical oncology has been gaining popularity. In autologous breast reconstruction (ABR), a standardized set of indicators to assess quality of care is lacking. In this study, we defined a set of evidence-based quality indicators for autologous breast reconstruction. First, we performed a systematic review to identify factors related to quality of care in ABR. Variables were categorized depending on their function: indicators related to outcome, indicators related to process and case-mix variables. The review was followed by a 3-round Delphi Consensus to determine which indicators and case-mix-variables were considered relevant and feasible for inclusion in an ABR standard set of indicators. 932 unique articles were identified, of which 110 papers were included in the study. Indicators were categorized by function: outcome, process and case-mix variables. In total, 8 process indicators and 41 outcome indicators were extracted. 30 case-mix-variables were included. Following 3 rounds of questioning in the Delphi Consensus, all respondents agreed on type of ABR, oncological outcomes and patient satisfaction for the standard set. Indicators related to complications were consistently ranked highly. Most process indicators were not chosen after 3 rounds of questioning. 11 case-mix-variables were included in the final set. Following the Delphi Consensus, it was possible to identify 33 process and outcome indicators and 11 case-mix-variables for inclusion for a standard set of quality indicators. With the inclusion of both objective and patient-reported outcome measures, this set of indicators provides a multidimensional measurement tool for quality assessment for ABR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Lindenblatt
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - N J Leuenberger
- Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Y Harder
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Lugano, Switzerland; Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università Della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| | - E A Kappos
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - A L Pusic
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - J Shaw
- Patient Advocacy Group, Oncoplastic Breast Consortium, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - P Giovanoli
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - D B Y Fontein
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Huang H, Wei T, Zhang A, Zhang H, Kong L, Li Y, Li F. Comparison of Survival Outcomes in Young Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Versus Unilateral Mastectomy. Clin Breast Cancer 2023; 23:752-762.e7. [PMID: 37586925 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.07.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 07/31/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been performed for several decades in patients with unilateral breast cancer (BC). However, the survival benefits of CPM are controversial, particularly in young women. MATERIALS AND METHOD In this retrospective study, the clinical total of 69,000 young female patients (age ≤ 40 years) who were diagnosed to have unilateral BC and underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) or CPM between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize selection bias and overcome differences in tumor characteristics between the CPM and UM groups. Overall survival (OS) and BC-specific survival (BCSS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared across groups using log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS A total of 36,528 patients (21,600 and 14,928 patients in the UM and CPM groups, respectively) were included in follow study. The CPM group showed a higher 5-year OS rate (82.1% vs. 75.8%) and a higher 5-year BCSS rate (83.5% vs. 77.7%) than the UM group. Multivariate Cox analysis after PSM (n = 13,089) showed that CPM significantly decreased 25% risk of all-cause mortality (OS, HR: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.80; P < .001) and 25% risk of BC-specific mortality (BCSS, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.70-0.80; P < .001) in young BC patients as compared to UM. CONCLUSION This study suggests that CPM improved OS and BCSS benefits in young BC patients as compared to UM. Randomized clinical trials with a larger sample size are required in the future to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongbo Huang
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Tingting Wei
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Aijie Zhang
- Department of Health Management Center, University-Town Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Heng Zhang
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Lingquan Kong
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Yunhai Li
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
| | - Fan Li
- Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Cozzi A, Di Leo G, Houssami N, Gilbert FJ, Helbich TH, Álvarez Benito M, Balleyguier C, Bazzocchi M, Bult P, Calabrese M, Camps Herrero J, Cartia F, Cassano E, Clauser P, de Lima Docema MF, Depretto C, Dominelli V, Forrai G, Girometti R, Harms SE, Hilborne S, Ienzi R, Lobbes MBI, Losio C, Mann RM, Montemezzi S, Obdeijn IM, Ozcan UA, Pediconi F, Pinker K, Preibsch H, Raya Povedano JL, Rossi Saccarelli C, Sacchetto D, Scaperrotta GP, Schlooz M, Szabó BK, Taylor DB, Ulus ÖS, Van Goethem M, Veltman J, Weigel S, Wenkel E, Zuiani C, Sardanelli F. Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study. Eur Radiol 2023; 33:6213-6225. [PMID: 37138190 PMCID: PMC10415233 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09600-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2022] [Revised: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. METHODS The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. RESULTS A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. CONCLUSIONS Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. KEY POINTS • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cozzi
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Giovanni Di Leo
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Nehmat Houssami
- The Daffodil Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney (Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW), Sydney, Australia
| | - Fiona J Gilbert
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Thomas H Helbich
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Corinne Balleyguier
- Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
- BioMaps (UMR1281), INSERM, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Massimo Bazzocchi
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Peter Bult
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Massimo Calabrese
- Unit of Oncological and Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Cartia
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Clauser
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Catherine Depretto
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Valeria Dominelli
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gábor Forrai
- Department of Radiology, MHEK Teaching Hospital, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Rossano Girometti
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Steven E Harms
- Breast Center of Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
| | - Sarah Hilborne
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Raffaele Ienzi
- Department of Radiology, Di.Bi.MED, Policlinico Universitario Paolo Giaccone, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Claudio Losio
- Department of Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Ritse M Mann
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stefania Montemezzi
- Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Inge-Marie Obdeijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Umit A Ozcan
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Federica Pediconi
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
| | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Heike Preibsch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | | | | | - Daniela Sacchetto
- Kiwifarm S.r.l, La Morra, Italy
- Disaster Medicine Service 118, ASL CN1, Saluzzo, Italy
- CRIMEDIM, Research Center in Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale "Amedeo Avogadro", Novara, Italy
| | | | - Margrethe Schlooz
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Botond K Szabó
- Department of Radiology, Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna B Taylor
- Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
- Department of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Özden S Ulus
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mireille Van Goethem
- Gynecological Oncology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Radiology, Multidisciplinary Breast Clinic, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- Maatschap Radiologie Oost-Nederland, Oldenzaal, The Netherlands
| | - Stefanie Weigel
- Institute of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Evelyn Wenkel
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Chiara Zuiani
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Schiaffino S, Cozzi A, Pompei B, Scarano AL, Catanese C, Catic A, Rossi L, Del Grande F, Harder Y. MRI-Conditional Breast Tissue Expander: First In-Human Multi-Case Assessment of MRI-Related Complications and Image Quality. J Clin Med 2023; 12:4410. [PMID: 37445444 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2023] [Revised: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 06/28/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023] Open
Abstract
This study aims to assess potential complications and effects on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality of a new MRI-conditional breast tissue expander (Motiva Flora®) in its first in-human multi-case application. Twenty-four patients with 36 expanders underwent non-contrast breast MRI with T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences on a 3 T unit before breast tissue expander exchange surgery, being monitored during and after MRI for potential complications. Three board-certified breast radiologists blindly and independently reviewed image quality using a four-level scale ("poor", "sufficient", "good", and "excellent"), with inter-reader reliability being assessed with Kendall's τb. The maximum diameters of RFID-related artifacts on T1-weighted and DWI sequences were compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All 24 examinations were completed without patient-related or device-related complications. The T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences of all the examinations had "excellent" image quality and a median 11 mm (IQR 9-12 mm) RFID artifact maximum diameter, significantly lower (p < 0.001) than on the DWI images (median 32.5 mm, IQR 28.5-34.5 mm). DWI quality was rated at least "good" in 63% of the examinations, with strong inter-reader reliability (Kendall's τb 0.837, 95% CI 0.687-0.952). This first in-human study confirms the MRI-conditional profile of this new expander, which does not affect the image quality of T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences and moderately affects DWI quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Schiaffino
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Cozzi
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Barbara Pompei
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Angela Lia Scarano
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Carola Catanese
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Armin Catic
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Lorenzo Rossi
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland
- Breast Unit of Southern Switzerland (CSSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland
| | - Filippo Del Grande
- Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| | - Yves Harder
- Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
- Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Morra A, Mavaddat N, Muranen TA, Ahearn TU, Allen J, Andrulis IL, Auvinen P, Becher H, Behrens S, Blomqvist C, Bojesen SE, Bolla MK, Brauch H, Camp NJ, Carvalho S, Castelao JE, Cessna MH, Chang-Claude J, Chenevix-Trench G, Czene K, Decker B, Dennis J, Dörk T, Dorling L, Dunning AM, Ekici AB, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Fasching PA, Figueroa JD, Flyger H, Gago-Dominguez M, García-Closas M, Geurts-Giele WRR, Giles GG, Guénel P, Gündert M, Hahnen E, Hall P, Hamann U, Harrington PA, He W, Heikkilä P, Hooning MJ, Hoppe R, Howell A, Humphreys K, Jakubowska A, Jung AY, Keeman R, Kristensen VN, Lubiński J, Mannermaa A, Manoochehri M, Manoukian S, Margolin S, Mavroudis D, Milne RL, Mulligan AM, Newman WG, Park-Simon TW, Peterlongo P, Pharoah PDP, Rhenius V, Saloustros E, Sawyer EJ, Schmutzler RK, Shah M, Spurdle AB, Tomlinson I, Truong T, van Veen EM, Vreeswijk MPG, Wang Q, Wendt C, Yang XR, Nevanlinna H, Devilee P, Easton DF, Schmidt MK. The impact of coding germline variants on contralateral breast cancer risk and survival. Am J Hum Genet 2023; 110:475-486. [PMID: 36827971 PMCID: PMC10027471 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Evidence linking coding germline variants in breast cancer (BC)-susceptibility genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 with contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the association of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) and rare missense variants (MSVs) in nine known (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) and 25 suspected BC-susceptibility genes with CBC risk and BCSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox regression models. Analyses included 34,401 women of European ancestry diagnosed with BC, including 676 CBCs and 3,449 BC deaths; the median follow-up was 10.9 years. Subtype analyses were based on estrogen receptor (ER) status of the first BC. Combined PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 and PALB2 were associated with increased CBC risk [HRs (95% CIs): 2.88 (1.70-4.87), 2.31 (1.39-3.85), 8.29 (2.53-27.21), 2.25 (1.55-3.27), and 2.67 (1.33-5.35), respectively]. The strongest evidence of association with BCSS was for PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA2 (ER-positive BC) and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 [HRs (95% CIs): 1.53 (1.13-2.07), 2.08 (0.95-4.57), and 1.39 (1.13-1.72), respectively, after adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment]. HRs were essentially unchanged when censoring for CBC, suggesting that these associations are not completely explained by increased CBC risk, tumor characteristics, or treatment. There was limited evidence of associations of PTVs and/or rare MSVs with CBC risk or BCSS for the 25 suspected BC genes. The CBC findings are relevant to treatment decisions, follow-up, and screening after BC diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Morra
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Division of Molecular Pathology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Taru A Muranen
- University of Helsinki, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Thomas U Ahearn
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jamie Allen
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Irene L Andrulis
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Fred A. Litwin Center for Cancer Genetics, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Department of Molecular Genetics, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Päivi Auvinen
- University of Eastern Finland, Translational Cancer Research Area, Kuopio, Finland; University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oncology, Kuopio, Finland; Kuopio University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Cancer Center, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Heiko Becher
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Sabine Behrens
- German Cancer Research Center, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Carl Blomqvist
- University of Helsinki, Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stig E Bojesen
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark; Copenhagen University Hospital, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark; University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Hiltrud Brauch
- Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany; University of Tübingen, iFIT-Cluster of Excellence, Tübingen, Germany; German Cancer Consortium and German Cancer Research Center, Partner Site Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Nicola J Camp
- University of Utah, Department of Internal Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Sara Carvalho
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jose E Castelao
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Oncology and Genetics Unit, Vigo, Spain
| | | | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- German Cancer Research Center, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Heidelberg, Germany; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Georgia Chenevix-Trench
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | -
- Oslo University Hospital-Radiumhospitalet, Department of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway; University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway; Vestre Viken Hospital, Department of Research, Drammen, Norway; Oslo University Hospital, Department of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway; Oslo University Hospital-Radiumhospitalet, Department of Oncology, Division of Surgery, Cancer and Transplantation Medicine, Oslo, Norway; Akershus University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Lørenskog, Norway; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Oslo, Norway; Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo, Norway; The Arctic University of Norway, Department of Community Medicine, Tromsø, Norway; The Arctic University of Norway, Core Facility for Biobanking, Tromsø, Norway
| | - Kamila Czene
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Brennan Decker
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK; Foundation Medicine, Inc, Pathology, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Joe Dennis
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Thilo Dörk
- Hannover Medical School, Gynaecology Research Unit, Hannover, Germany
| | - Leila Dorling
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alison M Dunning
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | - Arif B Ekici
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute of Human Genetics, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Mikael Eriksson
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D Gareth Evans
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK; St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter A Fasching
- University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jonine D Figueroa
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD, USA; The University of Edinburgh, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK; The University of Edinburgh, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Henrik Flyger
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Department of Breast Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Manuela Gago-Dominguez
- Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Genomic Medicine Group, International Cancer Genetics and Epidemiology Group, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; University of California San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Graham G Giles
- Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Epidemiology Division, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Monash University, Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Pascal Guénel
- INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Team Exposome and Heredity, Villejuif, France
| | - Melanie Gündert
- German Cancer Research Center, Molecular Epidemiology Group, C080, Heidelberg, Germany; University of Heidelberg, Molecular Biology of Breast Cancer, University Womens Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Diabetes Research, Neuherberg, Germany
| | - Eric Hahnen
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Cologne, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, Cologne, Germany
| | - Per Hall
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden; Södersjukhuset, Department of Oncology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ute Hamann
- German Cancer Research Center, Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Patricia A Harrington
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | - Wei He
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Päivi Heikkilä
- University of Helsinki, Department of Pathology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Maartje J Hooning
- Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Reiner Hoppe
- Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany; University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Anthony Howell
- University of Manchester, Division of Cancer Sciences, Manchester, UK
| | - Keith Humphreys
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | -
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Research Department, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Anna Jakubowska
- Pomeranian Medical University, Department of Genetics and Pathology, International Hereditary Cancer Center, Szczecin, Poland; Pomeranian Medical University, Independent Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetic Diagnostics, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Audrey Y Jung
- German Cancer Research Center, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Renske Keeman
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Division of Molecular Pathology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Vessela N Kristensen
- University of Oslo, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway; Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo, Norway
| | - Jan Lubiński
- Pomeranian Medical University, Department of Genetics and Pathology, International Hereditary Cancer Center, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Arto Mannermaa
- University of Eastern Finland, Translational Cancer Research Area, Kuopio, Finland; University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Kuopio, Finland; Kuopio University Hospital, Biobank of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Mehdi Manoochehri
- German Cancer Research Center, Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Siranoush Manoukian
- Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Milan, Italy
| | - Sara Margolin
- Södersjukhuset, Department of Oncology, Stockholm, Sweden; Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Dimitrios Mavroudis
- University Hospital of Heraklion, Department of Medical Oncology, Heraklion, Greece
| | - Roger L Milne
- Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Epidemiology Division, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Monash University, Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Anna Marie Mulligan
- University of Toronto, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Toronto, ON, Canada; University Health Network, Laboratory Medicine Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - William G Newman
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK; St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Paolo Peterlongo
- IFOM ETS - the AIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Genome Diagnostics Program, Milan, Italy
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK; University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | - Valerie Rhenius
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Elinor J Sawyer
- King's College London, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Guy's Campus, London, UK
| | - Rita K Schmutzler
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Cologne, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, Cologne, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Mitul Shah
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | - Amanda B Spurdle
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Population Health Program, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Ian Tomlinson
- University of Birmingham, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Birmingham, UK; University of Oxford, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics and Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Thérèse Truong
- INSERM, University Paris-Saclay, Center for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Team Exposome and Heredity, Villejuif, France
| | - Elke M van Veen
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK; St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester, UK
| | - Maaike P G Vreeswijk
- Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Human Genetics, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Qin Wang
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK
| | - Camilla Wendt
- Södersjukhuset, Department of Oncology, Stockholm, Sweden; Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Xiaohong R Yang
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Heli Nevanlinna
- University of Helsinki, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Peter Devilee
- Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Human Genetics, Leiden, the Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Douglas F Easton
- University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge, UK; University of Cambridge, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Division of Molecular Pathology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 Amsterdam, the Netherlands; The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Schmidt MK, Kelly JE, Brédart A, Cameron DA, de Boniface J, Easton DF, Offersen BV, Poulakaki F, Rubio IT, Sardanelli F, Schmutzler R, Spanic T, Weigelt B, Rutgers EJT. EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Eur J Cancer 2023; 181:79-91. [PMID: 36641897 PMCID: PMC10326619 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Anne Brédart
- Institut Curie, Paris, France; Psychology Institute, Psychopathology and Health Process Laboratory UR4057, Paris City University, Paris, France
| | - David A Cameron
- Edinburgh University Cancer Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Breast Unit, Capio St. Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital - Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - Fiorita Poulakaki
- Breast Surgery Department, Athens Medical Center, Athens, Greece; Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy
| | - Isabel T Rubio
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Tanja Spanic
- Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy; Europa Donna Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Britta Weigelt
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Clegg DJ, Salomon BJ, Porter CG, Mazonas TW, Heidel RE, Chun JT, Herbig KS, Stephenson SM, Lloyd JM, Boukovalas S. The Impact of Travel Distance and Income on Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy in a Rural Population. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023; 11:e4802. [PMID: 36751509 PMCID: PMC9894339 DOI: 10.1097/gox.0000000000004802] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
Factors that influence breast reconstruction after mastectomy have been previously examined in national databases. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of patient travel distance and income on breast reconstruction after mastectomy in a rural population. Methods Retrospective review of mastectomy patients from 2017 to 2021 was performed from our prospectively enrolled tumor registry. Analysis included frequencies and percentages, descriptive statistics, χ 2 analysis, independent sample t tests, and multivariable analysis. Results In total, 462 patients were included. Median BMI was 27.6 kg/m2, 96.1% of patients were White, and median age at diagnosis was 60.0 years. Reconstruction rate was 52.6%, and median length of follow-up was 24.6 months. No significant difference was found in the distance traveled by patients who underwent reconstruction (16.6 versus 16.7 miles; P = 0.94). Rates of reconstruction in patients who traveled 0-10 miles, 11-30 miles, and over 30 miles did not differ significantly (P = 0.16). Median household income was significantly different in reconstructed and nonreconstructed patients ($55,316.00 versus $51,629.00; P = 0.047). Rates of reconstruction were significantly higher in patients with median household income greater than $65,000 (P = 0.024). This difference was not significant on multivariable analysis. Conclusions Travel distance did not significantly impact reconstruction rates after mastectomy, while household income did on univariable analysis. Studies at an institutional or regional level remain valuable, especially in populations that may not be accurately represented in larger database studies. Our findings highlight the importance of patient education, resource allocation, and multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer care, especially in the rural setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devin J. Clegg
- From the Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tenn
| | - Brett J. Salomon
- From the Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tenn
| | - Christopher G. Porter
- From the Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tenn
| | - Thomas W. Mazonas
- From the Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tenn
| | - Robert E. Heidel
- Department of Surgery, Division of Biostatistics, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, Tenn
| | - Joseph T. Chun
- Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville Tenn
| | - Kathleen S. Herbig
- Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville Tenn
| | - Stacy M. Stephenson
- Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville Tenn
| | - Jillian M. Lloyd
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville Tenn
| | - Stefanos Boukovalas
- Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville Tenn
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Radin AS, Bower JE, Irwin MR, Asher A, Hurvitz SA, Cole SW, Crespi CM, Ganz PA. Acute health-related quality of life outcomes and systemic inflammatory markers following contemporary breast cancer surgery. NPJ Breast Cancer 2022; 8:91. [PMID: 35941136 PMCID: PMC9359976 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-022-00456-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Contemporary breast cancer surgical procedures vary greatly by the amount of tissue removed, anesthesia time, and reconstruction. Despite historical literature comparing the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after lumpectomy and mastectomy, HRQOL data are limited regarding contemporary surgical procedures. Further, biological processes (e.g., inflammation) associated with HRQOL outcomes have not been described. We conducted two studies to examine differences in post-operative physical and mental functioning, pain, fatigue, and systemic inflammatory markers including interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Study 1 assessed women before and after surgery (n = 27) and Study 2 used a large cross-sectional sample (n = 240) to confirm findings from Study 1 and included a no-surgery comparison group. In Study 1, women who received mastectomy had lower physical functioning than lumpectomy (ps < 0.05), and those who received bilateral mastectomy had worse pain (p < 0.01) and fatigue (p = 0.029) than lumpectomy. Results were replicated in Study 2: mastectomy groups exhibited poorer physical functioning (ps < 0.01) and greater pain (ps < 0.001) than lumpectomy, and bilateral mastectomy was associated with worse fatigue (p < 0.05). Women who received bilateral mastectomy had higher levels of CRP than lumpectomy (p < 0.01) and higher TNF-α than the no-surgery group (p < 0.05). All surgery groups exhibited higher IL-6 than no-surgery (ps < 0.05). More extensive surgery is associated with poorer postoperative HRQOL. As compared to lumpectomy and no-surgery, mastectomy is associated with higher concentrations of systemic inflammatory markers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arielle S Radin
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Julienne E Bower
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Michael R Irwin
- Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Arash Asher
- Departments of Medicine and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Sara A Hurvitz
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Steve W Cole
- Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Catherine M Crespi
- Department of Biostatistics, UCLA-Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Patricia A Ganz
- Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
- Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
- Department of Health Policy & Management, UCLA-Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Jürgens H, Roht L, Leitsalu L, Nõukas M, Palover M, Nikopensius T, Reigo A, Kals M, Kallak K, Kütner R, Budrikas K, Kuusk S, Valvere V, Laidre P, Toome K, Rekker K, Tooming M, Ülle Murumets, Kahre T, Kruuv-Käo K, Õunap K, Padrik P, Metspalu A, Esko T, Fischer K, Tõnisson N. Precise, Genotype-First Breast Cancer Prevention: Experience With Transferring Monogenic Findings From a Population Biobank to the Clinical Setting. Front Genet 2022; 13:881100. [PMID: 35938029 PMCID: PMC9355130 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.881100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Although hereditary breast cancer screening and management are well accepted and established in clinical settings, these efforts result in the detection of only a fraction of genetic predisposition at the population level. Here, we describe our experience from a national pilot study (2018-2021) in which 180 female participants of Estonian biobank (of >150,000 participants in total) were re-contacted to discuss personalized clinical prevention measures based on their genetic predisposition defined by 11 breast cancer-related genes. Our results show that genetic risk variants are relatively common in the average-risk Estonian population. Seventy-five percent of breast cancer cases in at-risk subjects occurred before the age of 50 years. Only one-third of subjects would have been eligible for clinical screening according to the current criteria. The participants perceived the receipt of genetic risk information as valuable. Fluent cooperation of project teams supported by state-of-art data management, quality control, and secure transfer can enable the integration of research results to everyday medical practice in a highly efficient, timely, and well-accepted manner. The positive experience in this genotype-first breast cancer study confirms the value of using existing basic genomic data from population biobanks for precise prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannes Jürgens
- Tartu University Hospital, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
- University of Tartu, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Laura Roht
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Liis Leitsalu
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Margit Nõukas
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Marili Palover
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Tiit Nikopensius
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Anu Reigo
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Mart Kals
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kersti Kallak
- Tartu University Hospital, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
- University of Tartu, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Riina Kütner
- North-Estonian Medical Center, Oncology and Haematology Clinic, Tallinn, Estonia
| | - Kai Budrikas
- Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Saskia Kuusk
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Vahur Valvere
- North-Estonian Medical Center, Oncology and Haematology Clinic, Tallinn, Estonia
| | - Piret Laidre
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Kadri Toome
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Kadri Rekker
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Mikk Tooming
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Ülle Murumets
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Tiina Kahre
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Krista Kruuv-Käo
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Katrin Õunap
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Peeter Padrik
- Tartu University Hospital, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
- University of Tartu, Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu, Estonia
- Antegenes, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Andres Metspalu
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Tõnu Esko
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Krista Fischer
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Neeme Tõnisson
- Genetics and Personalized Medicine Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
- Estonian Biobank, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hanson SE, Lei X, Roubaud MS, DeSnyder SM, Caudle AS, Shaitelman SF, Hoffman KE, Smith GL, Jagsi R, Peterson SK, Smith BD. Long-term Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer After Breast Conservation vs Mastectomy and Reconstruction. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:e220631. [PMID: 35416926 PMCID: PMC9008558 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0631] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Importance Treatment options for early breast cancer include breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy and breast reconstruction without RT. Despite marked differences in these treatment strategies, little is known with regard to their association with long-term quality of life (QOL). Objective To evaluate the association of treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT vs mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with long-term QOL. Design, Setting, and Participants This comparative effectiveness research study used data from the Texas Cancer Registry for women diagnosed with stage 0-II breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy and reconstruction between 2006 and 2008. The study sample was mailed a survey between March 2017 and April 2018. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018 to October 15, 2021. Exposures Breast-conserving surgery with RT or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was satisfaction with breasts, measured with the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included BREAST-Q physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being; health utility, measured using the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 3-Level questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret. Multivariable linear regression models with weights for treatment, age, and race and ethnicity tested associations of the exposure with outcomes. Results Of 647 patients who responded to the survey (40.0%; 356 had undergone breast-conserving surgery, and 291 had undergone mastectomy and reconstruction), 551 (85.2%) confirmed treatment with breast-conserving surgery with RT (n = 315) or mastectomy and reconstruction without RT (n = 236). Among the 647 respondents, the median age was 53 years (range, 23-85 years) and the median time from diagnosis to survey was 10.3 years (range, 8.4-12.5 years). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference between breast-conserving surgery with RT (referent) and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT in satisfaction with breasts (effect size, 2.71; 95% CI, -2.45 to 7.88; P = .30) or physical well-being (effect size, -1.80; 95% CI, -5.65 to 2.05; P = .36). In contrast, psychosocial well-being (effect size, -8.61; 95% CI, -13.26 to -3.95; P < .001) and sexual well-being (effect size, -10.68; 95% CI, -16.60 to -4.76; P < .001) were significantly worse with mastectomy and reconstruction without RT. Health utility (effect size, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .61) did not differ by treatment group. Conclusions and Relevance The findings support equivalence of breast-conserving surgery with RT and mastectomy and reconstruction without RT with regard to breast satisfaction and physical well-being. However, breast-conserving surgery with RT was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in psychosocial and sexual well-being. These findings may help inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Summer E Hanson
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Xiudong Lei
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Margaret S Roubaud
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Sarah M DeSnyder
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Abigail S Caudle
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Simona F Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Karen E Hoffman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Grace L Smith
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Reshma Jagsi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Susan K Peterson
- Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| | - Benjamin D Smith
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.,Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Menko FH, Monkhorst K, Hogervorst FB, Rosenberg EH, Adank M, Ruijs MW, Bleiker EM, Sonke GS, Russell NS, Oldenburg HS, van der Kolk LE. Challenges in breast cancer genetic testing. A call for novel forms of multidisciplinary care and long-term evaluation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2022; 176:103642. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 02/04/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
|
23
|
Terribile DA, Mason EJ, Murando F, DI Leone A, Sanchez AM, Scardina L, Magno S, Franco A, D'Archi S, Natale M, Lucci Cordisco E, Masetti R, Franceschini G. Surgical management of BRCA pathogenic variant carriers with breast cancer: a recent literature review and current state of the art. Minerva Surg 2021; 76:564-574. [PMID: 34338470 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-5691.21.09009-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Surgical management of breast cancer patients carrying pathogenic variants (PV) on breast cancer genes (BRCA) 1 and 2 has changed throughout the last decade due to growing availability of genetic testing, and has shifted towards the diffusion of bilateral mastectomy. Today's scenario however is in further evolution because of emerging data that suggest a personalized modulation of treatment. In this work we aimed to gather recent evidence supporting a prophylactic or conservative surgical approach in order to define the state of the art in today's treatment of BRCA carriers with breast cancer. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We reviewed the literature to identify studies providing evidence on surgical treatment in breast cancer patients with BRCA 1 and 2 PVs. We included articles comparing outcomes between patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and articles investigating contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM), with a particular focus on recent literature. International guidelines were also reviewed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Optimal surgical management of BRCA PV carriers with breast cancer remains controversial. While the introduction of routine genetic testing has initially led surgeons to favor more radical treatments, recent literature provides evidence that a conservative approach is safe and feasible in selected cases. Guidelines are heterogeneous and provide guidance without constraining the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS Patients should undergo adequate genetic and surgical counseling in order to receive the best tailored surgical treatment. Because guidelines vary in different countries and provide no definite protocol, they highlight the importance of accurate surgical planning. Clinical, familial and psychosocial factors should be taken into account when approaching a BRCA PV carrier with breast cancer, in order to guarantee the best evidence-based patient care in an era of personalized treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela A Terribile
- Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.,Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Elena J Mason
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy -
| | - Federica Murando
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Alba DI Leone
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Alejandro M Sanchez
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Scardina
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Magno
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Franco
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Sabatino D'Archi
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Maria Natale
- Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Riccardo Masetti
- Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.,Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Gianluca Franceschini
- Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.,Multidisciplinary Breast Centre, Dipartimento Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Lim DW, Retrouvey H, Kerrebijn I, Butler K, O'Neill AC, Cil TD, Zhong T, Hofer SOP, McCready DR, Metcalfe KA. Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Outcomes Following Surgery in Women with Unilateral Nonhereditary Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:5985-5998. [PMID: 33821345 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09928-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Lim
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. .,Department of Surgery, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. .,Division of General Surgery, University Health Network (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Helene Retrouvey
- Division of Plastic Surgery, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Isabel Kerrebijn
- Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kate Butler
- Division of Plastic Surgery, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anne C O'Neill
- Division of Plastic Surgery, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Tulin D Cil
- Department of Surgery, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Division of General Surgery, University Health Network (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Toni Zhong
- Division of Plastic Surgery, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Stefan O P Hofer
- Division of Plastic Surgery, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - David R McCready
- Division of General Surgery, University Health Network (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre), Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kelly A Metcalfe
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|