1
|
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
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
Laterality and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Free Abdominal Tissue: An 8-Year Examination of BREAST-Q Data. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146:964-975. [PMID: 33141527 DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000007239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the rise in rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, few studies have used patient-reported outcomes to assess satisfaction between unilateral and bilateral breast reconstruction with autologous tissue. The purpose of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction and quality of life following autologous reconstruction to determine whether differences exist between unilateral and bilateral reconstructions to better guide clinical decision-making. METHODS The current study examined prospectively collected BREAST-Q results following abdominal free flap breast reconstruction procedures performed at a tertiary academic medical center from 2009 to 2017. The reconstruction module of the BREAST-Q was used to assess outcomes between laterality groups (unilateral versus bilateral) at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and more than 3 years. RESULTS Overall, 405 patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction completed the BREAST-Q. Cross-sectional analysis at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years revealed similar satisfaction scores between groups; however, bilateral reconstruction patients demonstrated higher satisfaction scores at more than 3 years (p = 0.04). Bilateral reconstruction patients reported lower scores of abdominal well-being at 1 year, 2 years, and more than 3 years (p = 0.01, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that satisfaction with breasts does not differ with the laterality of the autologous reconstruction up to 3 years postoperatively but may diverge thereafter. Bilateral reconstruction patients, however, have lower satisfaction with the abdominal donor site. These data can be used in preoperative counseling, informed consent, and expectations management in patients considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.
Collapse
|
4
|
Agarwal S, Pappas L, Matsen CB, Agarwal JP. Second primary breast cancer after unilateral mastectomy alone or with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer Med 2020; 9:8043-8052. [PMID: 32918537 PMCID: PMC7643660 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2020] [Revised: 07/05/2020] [Accepted: 07/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background An increasing number of patients undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer. However, the benefit of CPM has not been quantified in the setting of contemporary breast cancer therapy. Methods We performed an analysis of 180 068 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, diagnosed with unilateral ductal breast carcinoma between 1998 and 2013 and treated with unilateral mastectomy (UM) or CPM. UM was performed in 146 213 patients (81.2%); CPM was performed in 33 855 patients (19.8%). Primary outcome of interest was cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast greater than 3 months after initial diagnosis. Cumulative incidence analysis was based on a Cox proportional model to generate curves of second primary breast cancer in any breast, ipsilateral breast only, or contralateral breast only. Results Patients who underwent CPM had a significantly reduced incidence of second primary breast cancer 10 and 15 years after surgery (CPM 0.93% [0.73%, 1.12%] vs UM 4.44% [4.28%, 4.60%]). Patients who underwent CPM had significantly lower adjusted hazard of second primary breast cancer when compared with UM (HR 0.38 vs 1.0, P < .0001). Conclusions CPM offers some protection from a second primary breast cancer, attributable to a reduced incidence in the contralateral breast. These findings provide additional information to providers and patients as they make decisions regarding surgical management. They should also be interpreted in the context of the absolute incidence of second primary breast cancer after UM and previous literature demonstrating no survival benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shailesh Agarwal
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Lisa Pappas
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Cindy B Matsen
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Jayant P Agarwal
- Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|