Perceptions of Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk: A Prospective, Longitudinal Study

Bilateral Mastectomy and Breast Cancer Mortality

Importance

The benefit of bilateral mastectomy for women with unilateral breast cancer in terms of deaths from breast cancer has not been shown.

Objectives

To estimate the 20-year cumulative risk of breast cancer mortality among women with stage 0 to stage III unilateral breast cancer according to the type of initial surgery performed.

Design, Settings, and Participants

This cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registry database to identify women with unilateral breast cancer (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) who were diagnosed from 2000 to 2019. Three closely matched cohorts of equal size were generated using 1:1:1 matching according to surgical approach. The cohorts were followed up for 20 years for contralateral breast cancer and for breast cancer mortality. The analysis compared the 20-year cumulative risk of breast cancer mortality for women treated with lumpectomy vs unilateral mastectomy vs bilateral mastectomy. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to February 2024.

Exposures

Type of breast surgery performed (lumpectomy, unilateral mastectomy, or bilateral mastectomy).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Contralateral breast cancer or breast cancer mortality during the 20-year follow-up period among the groups treated with lumpectomy vs unilateral mastectomy vs bilateral mastectomy.

Results

The study sample included 661 270 women with unilateral breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [11.3] years). After matching, there were 36 028 women in each of the 3 treatment groups. During the 20-year follow-up, there were 766 contralateral breast cancers observed in the lumpectomy group, 728 contralateral breast cancers in the unilateral mastectomy group, and 97 contralateral cancers in the bilateral mastectomy group. The 20-year risk of contralateral breast cancer was 6.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.9%) in the lumpectomy-unilateral mastectomy group. The cumulative breast cancer mortality was 32.1% at 15 years after developing a contralateral cancer and was 14.5% for those who did not develop a contralateral cancer (hazard ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 3.52-4.54, using contralateral breast cancer as a time-dependent covariate). Deaths from breast cancer totaled 3077 women (8.54%) in the lumpectomy group, 3269 women (9.07%) in the unilateral mastectomy group, and 3062 women (8.50%) in the bilateral mastectomy group.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study indicates that the risk of dying of breast cancer increases substantially after experiencing a contralateral breast cancer. Women with breast cancer treated with bilateral mastectomy had a greatly diminished risk of contralateral breast cancer; however, they experienced similar mortality rates as patients treated with lumpectomy or unilateral mastectomy.

"Peace of Mind" After Mastectomy: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Many women eligible for breast conservation therapy (BCT) elect unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and cite a desire for "peace of mind." This study aimed to characterize how peace of mind is defined and measured and how it relates to surgical choice.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for relevant articles through 8 October 2023, and data were extracted from articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 20 studies. Most were prospective cohort studies (65%, 13/20). In the majority of the studies (72%, 13/18), Non-Hispanic white/Caucasian women comprised 80 % or more of the study's sample. Almost half of the studies used the phrase "peace of mind" in their publication (45%, 9/20), and few directly defined the construct (15%, 3/20). Instead, words representing an absence of peace of mind were common, specifically, "anxiety" (85%, 17/20), "fear" (75%, 15/20), and "concern" (75%, 15/20). Most of the studies (90%, 18/20) measured peace of mind indirectly using questionnaires validated for anxiety, fear, worry, distress, or concern, which were administered at multiple postoperative time points (55%, 11/20). Most of the studies (95%, 18/19) reported at least one statistically significant result showing no difference in peace of mind between BCT, UM, and/or CPM at their latest time of assessment.

CONCLUSION

Peace of mind is largely framed around concepts that suggest its absence, namely, anxiety, fear, and concern. Existing literature suggests that peace of mind does not differ among average-risk women undergoing BCT, UM, or CPM. Shared surgical decisions should emphasize at least comparable emotional and/or psychosocial well-being between CPM and breast conservation.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes in Young Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Versus Unilateral Mastectomy

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.

Fear of cancer recurrence and coping attitudes of breast cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Bilateral Mastectomy in Women With Unilateral Breast Cancer: A Review

Importance

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

Observations

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Clinical features, prognosis, and influencing factors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in 58 patients with breast cancer

Background

The past two decades have witnessed the increasing application of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for women with breast cancer in the western countries. Over 30% of young patients choose to underwent CPM up to 2015. However, the adoption rate of CPM has not shown a remarkably increasing in Asian countries. In China, only a few centers have introduced CPM, and no relevant literature has been published. In this study, we look forward to identify the clinical features and prognostic factors of women who underwent CPM in our hospital, to inform decision-making processes for both doctors and patients.

Methods

The clinical data of 58 eligible patients were retrospectively analyzed. Intergroup comparisons were based on independent samples t-test and chi square test. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained by using life tables, and factors affecting the survivals were analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The mean age of these women was 40.14±11.17 years, with 30 patients (51.7%) being ≤40 years; 13 patients (22.4%) had a family history of breast cancer; and 49 (69.0%) had known risk factors for breast cancer. The median follow-up period was 66.77 months, the 5-year OS was 89% and the 5-year DFS was 74%. The average age of onset was 41.53 (±10.964) in the disease-free survival group and 34.18 (±10.4) years in the recurrence/metastasis group, and t-test revealed a significant difference in the average age between these two groups (P=0.049). Chi-square test showed that the disease progression rate significantly differed among the different age subgroups and among subjects with different body mass index (BMI) (all P≤0.05). Moreover, surgical procedure, family history of breast cancer, and some other factors showed no significant correlation with disease progression (all P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank test further confirmed the above findings.

Conclusions

The majority of patients who choose CPM are young and with known risk factors for breast cancer. Part of the young patients (≤40 years of age) are at a higher risk of disease progression.

Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

We aimed to assess contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with invasive breast cancer (BC). Women diagnosed with DCIS (N = 28,003) or stage I-III BC (N = 275,836) between 1989 and 2017 were identified from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cumulative incidences were estimated, accounting for competing risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) for metachronous invasive CBC. To evaluate effects of adjuvant systemic therapy and screening, separate analyses were performed for stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy and by mode of first BC detection. Multivariable models including clinico-pathological and treatment data were created to assess CBC risk prediction performance in DCIS patients. The 10-year cumulative incidence of invasive CBC was 4.8% for DCIS patients (CBC = 1334). Invasive CBC risk was higher in DCIS patients compared with invasive BC overall (HR = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.17), and lower compared with stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.82-0.92). In patients diagnosed ≥2011, the HR for invasive CBC was 1.38 (95% CI = 1.35-1.68) after screen-detected DCIS compared with screen-detected invasive BC, and was 2.14 (95% CI = 1.46-3.13) when not screen-detected. The C-index was 0.52 (95% CI = 0.50-0.54) for invasive CBC prediction in DCIS patients. In conclusion, CBC risks are low overall. DCIS patients had a slightly higher risk of invasive CBC compared with invasive BC, likely explained by the risk-reducing effect of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy among BC patients. For support of clinical decision making more information is needed to differentiate CBC risks among DCIS patients.

Barriers and Facilitators to De-Implementation of the Choosing Wisely® Guidelines for Low-Value Breast Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

To address overuse of unnecessary practices, several surgical organizations have participated in the Choosing Wisely^® campaign and identified four breast cancer surgical procedures as unnecessary. Despite evidence demonstrating no survival benefit for all four, evidence suggests only two have been substantially de-implemented. Our objective was to understand why surgeons stop performing certain unnecessary cancer operations but not others and how best to de-implement entrenched and emerging unnecessary procedures.

METHODS

We sampled surgeons who treat breast cancer in a variety of practice types and geographic regions in the United States. Using a semi-structured guide, we conducted telephone interviews (n = 18) to elicit attitudes and understand practices relating to the four identified breast cancer procedures in the Choosing Wisely^® campaign. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

For the two procedures successfully de-implemented, surgeons described a high level of confidence in the data supporting the recommendations. In contrast, surgeons frequently described a lack of familiarity or skepticism toward the recommendation to avoid sentinel-node biopsy in women ≥ 70 years of age and the influence of other collaborating oncology providers as justification for continued use. Regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, surgeons consistently agreed with the recommendation that this was unnecessary, yet reported continued utilization due to the value placed on patient autonomy and preference.

CONCLUSIONS

With a growing focus on the elimination of ineffective, unproven or low value practices, it is imperative that the behavioral determinants are understood and targeted with specific interventions to decrease utilization rapidly.

Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for contralateral breast cancer (CBC), with the consequent burden of further treatment and potentially less favorable prognosis. We aimed to develop and validate a CBC risk prediction model and evaluate its applicability for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We included data of 132,756 invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients from 20 studies with 4682 CBC events and a median follow-up of 8.8 years. We developed a multivariable Fine and Gray prediction model (PredictCBC-1A) including patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics and BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, accounting for the competing risks of death and distant metastasis. We also developed a model without BRCA1/2 mutation status (PredictCBC-1B) since this information was available for only 6% of patients and is routinely unavailable in the general breast cancer population. Prediction performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination, calculated by a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and an internal-external cross-validation procedure. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of the model to quantify clinical utility.

RESULTS

In the multivariable model, BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, family history, and systemic adjuvant treatment showed the strongest associations with CBC risk. The AUC of PredictCBC-1A was 0.63 (95% prediction interval (PI) at 5 years, 0.52-0.74; at 10 years, 0.53-0.72). Calibration-in-the-large was -0.13 (95% PI: -1.62-1.37), and the calibration slope was 0.90 (95% PI: 0.73-1.08). The AUC of Predict-1B at 10 years was 0.59 (95% PI: 0.52-0.66); calibration was slightly lower. Decision curve analysis for preventive contralateral mastectomy showed potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-1A between thresholds of 4-10% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reasonably calibrated model to predict the risk of CBC in women of European-descent; however, prediction accuracy was moderate. Our model shows potential for improved risk counseling, but decision-making regarding contralateral preventive mastectomy, especially in the general breast cancer population where limited information of the mutation status in BRCA1/2 is available, remains challenging.

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

PURPOSE

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients greatly overestimate their risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Better understanding of patient conceptions of risk would facilitate doctor-patient communication and surgical decision making. In this mixed methods study, we prospectively examined breast cancer patients' perceived risk of future cancer and the reported factors that drove their risk perceptions.

METHODS

Women age 21-60 diagnosed with breast cancer without a BRCA mutation or known distant metastases completed a study interview between surgical consult and surgical treatment. Participants completed a 12-item Perceived Risk Questionnaire, which assessed 10-year and lifetime risks of ipsilateral local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence. Patients provided qualitative explanations for their answers.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients completed study interviews (mean age 50.3). Participants were primarily White (85.7%) and 90.5% had attended college. Patients estimated their 10-year risk of CBC as 22.0%, nearly 4 times the established 10-year risk. Women attributed their risk perceptions to "gut feelings" about future cancer, even when women knew those feelings contradicted medically established risk. Perceptions of risk also reflected beliefs that cancer is random and that risk for local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence are the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the need for novel ways of presenting factual information regarding both risk of recurrence and of new primary cancers, as well as the necessity of acknowledging cognitive and affective processes many patients use when conceptualizing risk. By differentiating women's intuitive feelings about risk from their knowledge of medically estimated risk, doctors can enhance informed decision making.

Dose-dependent effect of mammographic breast density on the risk of contralateral breast cancer

PURPOSE

Increased mammographic breast density is a significant risk factor for breast cancer. It is not clear if it is also a risk factor for the development of contralateral breast cancer.

METHODS

The data were obtained from Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and included women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ between ages 18 and 88 and years 1995 and 2009. Each case of contralateral breast cancer was matched with three controls based on year of first breast cancer diagnosis, race, and length of follow-up. A total of 847 cases and 2541 controls were included. The risk factors included in the study were mammographic breast density, age of first breast cancer diagnosis, family history of breast cancer, anti-estrogen treatment, hormone replacement therapy, menopausal status, and estrogen receptor status, all from the time of first breast cancer diagnosis. Both univariate analysis and multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In the final multivariate model, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and anti-estrogen treatment remained significant with p values less than 0.01. Increasing breast density had a dose-dependent effect on the risk of contralateral breast cancer. Relative to 'almost entirely fat' category of breast density, the adjusted odds ratios (and p values) in the multivariate analysis for 'scattered density,' 'heterogeneously dense,' and 'extremely dense' categories were 1.65 (0.036), 2.10 (0.002), and 2.32 (0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Breast density is an independent and significant risk factor for development of contralateral breast cancer. This risk factor should contribute to clinical decision making.

Patient Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risk in Imaging-Detected Low-Risk Scenarios and Thresholds for Desired Intervention: A Multi-Institution Survey

PURPOSE

To determine women's perceptions of breast cancer risk and thresholds for desiring biopsy when considering BI-RADS 3 and 4A scenarios and recommendations, respectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women presenting for screening mammography from five geographically diverse medical centers were surveyed. Demographic information and baseline anxiety were queried. Participants were presented with scenarios of short-term imaging follow-up recommendations (ie, BI-RADS 3) and biopsy recommendations (ie, BI-RADS 4A) for low-risk mammographic abnormalities and asked to estimate their breast cancer risk for each scenario. Participants reported the threshold (ie, likelihood of cancer) where they would feel comfortable undergoing short-term imaging follow-up and biopsy and their anticipated regret for choosing short-term follow-up versus biopsy.

RESULTS

Analysis of 2,747 surveys showed that participants estimated breast cancer risk of 32.8% for a BI-RADS 3 and 41.1% for a BI-RADS 4A scenarios are significantly greater rates than clinically established rates (<2% [P < .001] and 2%-10% [P < .001], respectively). Over one-half (55.4%) of participants reported they would never want imaging follow-up if there was any chance of cancer; two-thirds (66.2%) reported they would desire biopsy if there was any chance of cancer. Participants reported greater anticipated regret (P < .001) and less relief and confidence (P < .001) with the decision to undergo follow-up imaging versus biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Women overestimate breast cancer risk associated with both BI-RADS 3 and 4A scenarios and desire very low biopsy thresholds. Greater anticipated regret and less relief and confidence was reported with the choice to undergo short-term imaging follow-up compared with biopsy.

Is Mastectomy Oncologically Safer than Breast-Conserving Treatment in Early Breast Cancer?

AIM

To describe and discuss the evidence for oncological safety of different procedures in oncological breast surgery, i.e. breast-conserving treatment versus mastectomy.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

Oncological safety in breast cancer surgery has many dimensions. Breast-conserving treatment has been established as the standard surgical procedure for primary breast cancer and fits to the preferences of most breast cancer patients concerning oncological safety and aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast-conserving treatment is safe. Nonetheless, the preferences of the individual patients in their consideration of breast conservation versus mastectomy should be integrated into routine treatment decisions.

Assessing the Effect of Lifetime Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk on the Selection of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Unilateral Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates are rising, with fear implicated as a contributing factor. This study used a contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk stratification tool to assess whether the selection of CPM is reflective of future CBC risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 404 women with unilateral breast cancer treated with breast conservation, unilateral mastectomy, or bilateral mastectomy within a single multidisciplinary clinic. Women were evaluated by the Manchester risk tool to calculate lifetime CBC risk. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate whether CBC risk was associated with CPM, and the clinical rationale for prophylactic mastectomy justification was recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-two percent underwent breast conservation, 18% unilateral mastectomy, and 20% bilateral mastectomy. In the CPM cohort, 36% had > 20% calculated lifetime CBC risk. In the invasive cohort, younger age (odds ratio 2.65, P < .0001) and genetic mutation positivity (odds ratio 35.39, P = .019) independently predicted CPM. Other contributing factors included benign contralateral breast findings (29%) and recommendations against breast conservation due to disease burden (28%). Six percent selected CPM as a result of an unsubstantiated fear regarding breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

The majority of women (63%) who selected CPM had < 20% CBC risk. In these lower-risk women selecting CPM, factors increasing reasonable fear dominated surgical choice (81% of this subset).

Utility of Regular Radiological Follow-up on Early Detection of Contralateral Malignancy and Long-term Outcomes in Metachronous Bilateral Breast Cancer Patients

Objectives We investigated the utility of regular radiological follow-up on the early detection of contralateral breast cancer(CBC) and prognosis in patients with metachronous bilateral breast cancer. Methods Between 1983 and 2010, 49(2.1%) metachronous bilateral breast cancer patients were identified among a total of 2,343 cases of invasive or in situ breast carcinomas. We reviewed the patients' medical records including age, stage, duration between the first and second breast cancer diagnosis, operation method, recurrence, and breast cancer-specific survival. Results The mean ages at the first and second breast cancer diagnosis were 43.8 and 49.2 years, respectively. The mean duration between the first and second breast cancer diagnosis was 68.9 months (range, 7–266 months). Regular radiological follow-up with annual mammography(MMG) with or without ultrasonography was conducted in 28 patients (63.6%, Group 1), and no regular follow-up was performed in 12 patients (27.3%, Group 2). The median follow-up duration was 150 months. In a comparative analysis, Group 1 patients exhibited more stage 0 and stage 1 malignancies (82.1% vs. 25%, P =0.006) as second cancer and the same or an improved stage (71.4% vs. 33.3%, P =0.042) of second cancer compared to Group 2 patients. Breast cancer-specific survival rates between the two groups after the first cancer occurrence were higher in Group 1 patients compared to Group 2 patients, although this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion Screening for CBC with regular radiological follow-up could result in early detection of CBC, less invasive surgical procedures, and enhanced breast cancer-specific survival outcomes.

The psychosocial impact of contralateral risk reducing mastectomy (CRRM) on women: A rapid review

OBJECTIVES

For women who have been diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer, there is an increasing trend for them to request removal of the contralateral healthy breast, the so-called contralateral risk reducing mastectomy (CRRM). The current literature is only just beginning to identify patient-reported reasons for undergoing CRRM and associated patient-reported outcomes. It is also unclear whether women at moderate/high risk of developing a subsequent primary contralateral breast cancer report similar outcomes to those considered to be at low/average risk. This lack of knowledge provides the rationale for this review.

METHODS

A rapid review methodology was undertaken to identify and explore the published research literature focused on the longer term (>5 y) psychosocial impacts on women who undergo CRRM.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. No UK studies were identified. High satisfaction and psychosocial well-being were consistently reported across all studies. Reducing the risk of a subsequent contralateral breast cancer and therefore reducing cancer-related anxiety, and satisfaction with cosmesis, were key themes running across all studies explaining satisfaction. Dissatisfaction was associated with adverse effects such as poor cosmesis, body image changes, femininity, sexual relationships, reoperations for acute and longer term complications, and reconstructive problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction and psychological well-being following CRRM was consistently high across all studies. However, the findings suggest women need to be more fully informed of the risks and benefits of CRRM and/or immediate/delayed reconstruction to support informed decision making.

Motivations for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy as a function of socioeconomic status

Background

Despite no demonstrated survival advantage for women at average risk of breast cancer, rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continue to increase. Research reveals women with higher socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to select CPM. This study examines how indicators of SES, age, and disease severity affect CPM motivations.

Methods

Patients (N = 113) who underwent CPM at four Indiana University affiliated hospitals completed telephone interviews in 2013. Participants answered questions about 11 CPM motivations and provided demographic information. Responses to motivation items were factor analyzed, resulting in 4 motivational factors: reducing long-term risk, symmetry, avoiding future medical visits, and avoiding treatments.

Results

Across demographic differences, reducing long-term risk was the strongest CPM motivation. Lower income predicted stronger motivation to reduce long-term risk and avoid treatment. Older participants were more motivated to avoid treatment; younger and more-educated patients were more concerned about symmetry. Greater severity of diagnosis predicted avoiding treatments.

Conclusions

Reducing long-term risk is the primary motivation across groups, but there are also notable differences as a function of age, education, income, and disease severity. To stop the trend of increasing CPM, physicians must tailor patient counseling to address motivations that are consistent across patient populations and those that vary between populations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12905-017-0366-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcomes of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in relation to familial history: a decision analysis (BRCR-D-16-00033)

Background

Family history of breast cancer is associated with an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) even in the absence of mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1/2. We compared quality-adjusted survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with surveillance only (no CPM) among women with breast cancer incorporating the degree of family history.

Methods

We created a microsimulation model for women with first-degree, second-degree, and no family history treated for a stage I, II, or III estrogen receptor (ER)-positive or ER-negative breast cancer at the ages of 40, 50, 60, and 70. The model incorporated a 10-year posttreatment period for risk of developing CBC and/or dying of the primary cancer or CBC. For each patient profile, we used 100,000 microsimulation trials to estimate quality-adjusted life expectancy for the clinical strategies CPM and no CPM.

Results

CPM showed minimal improvement on quality-adjusted life expectancy among women age 50–60 with no or a unilateral first-degree or second-degree family history (decreasing from 0.31 to –0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) and was unfavorable for most subgroups of women age 70 with stage III breast cancer regardless of degree of family history (range –0.08 to –0.02 QALYs). Sensitivity analysis showed that the highest predicted benefit of CPM assuming 95 % risk reduction in CBC was 0.57 QALYs for a 40-year-old woman with stage I breast cancer who had a first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer.

Conclusions

Women age 40 with stage I breast cancer and a first-degree relative with bilateral breast cancer have a QALY benefit from CPM similar to that reported for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. For most subgroups of women, CPM has a minimal to no effect on quality-adjusted life expectancy, irrespective of family history of breast cancer.

Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely (®) Initiative

BACKGROUND

Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged.

METHODS

The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign. The resulting list of "appropriateness" measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below.

RESULTS

(1) Don't routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don't routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don't routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don't routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don't routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely (®) campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations.