Negative Genetic Testing Does Not Deter Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Younger Patients with Greater Family Histories of Breast Cancer

Complications Associated with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

No prior systematic review and meta-analysis has aimed to answer the frequently-studied question: does a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) increase complication risk for unilateral breast cancer patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy (UM)?

METHODS

A February 2021 search for studies on complications of UM+CPM identified 15 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted to compare complications of 1) diseased versus CPM breasts for UM+CPM patients and 2) patients undergoing UM+CPM versus UM alone when grouped by their different reconstructive methods. Outcomes included incidence of any complication and any severe complication requiring re-operation, re-admission, or delay in adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

For all UM+CPM patients, the diseased breast was slightly more prone to complications versus the CPM breast (RR:1.24, CI:1.02-1.51). In studies that stratified by reconstructive method, incidence of complications was higher for UM+CPM versus UM alone for patients with no reconstruction (RR:2.03, CI:1.38-2.98), prosthetic-based reconstruction (RR:1.42, CI:1.13-1.80), and autologous reconstruction (RR:1.32, CI:1.09-1.61). Similar results were found by the only prospective trial on the topic, which showed the same for more severe complications. Other smaller retrospective studies that did not stratify by reconstructive method showed similar complications for UM+CPM versus UM alone (RR:1.06, CI:0.79-1.42). These groups had similar incidences of complication-related delay in adjuvant therapy, as demonstrated by one study.

CONCLUSIONS

After UM+CPM, CPM breasts incur only slightly fewer complications. Stronger evidence supports more complications for UM+CPM than UM alone, although some studies report no difference. More work is needed to determine the effect of complications on timing of adjuvant therapy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability

The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased steadily over the last twenty years in women of all age groups and breast cancer stages. Since contralateral breast cancer is relatively rare and the breast cancer guidelines only recommend CPM in a small subset of patients with breast cancer, the drivers of this trend are unknown. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for and acceptability of CPM, data on patient rationales for choosing CPM, and some of the factors that might impact patient preferences. Based on the evidence, future recommendations will be provided. First, data on contralateral breast cancer risk and CPM rates and trends are addressed. After that, the evidence is structured around four main patient rationales for CPM formulated as questions that patients might ask their surgeon: Will CPM reduce mortality risk? Will CPM reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer? Can I avoid future screening with CPM? Will I have better breast symmetry after CPM? Also, three different guidelines regarding CPM will be reviewed. Studies indicate a large gap between patient preferences for radical risk reduction with CPM and the current approaches recommended by important guidelines. We suggest a strategy including shared decision-making to enhance surgeons’ communication with patients about contralateral breast cancer and treatment options, to empower patients in order to optimize the use of CPM incorporating accurate risk assessment and individual patient preferences.

•

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have increased over the last 20 years.

•

Patients may want CPM to reduce risk of contralateral breast cancer and mortality.

•

Patients do not always have the tools available to make a well-informed decision.

•

Patient and surgeon’s shared decision-making could optimize the use of CPM.

The Angelina Jolie effect: Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy trends in patients at increased risk of breast cancer

Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) rates have tripled over the last 2 decades. Reasons for this are multi-factorial, with those harbouring a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 gene having the greatest survival benefit. On May 14th, 2013, Angelina Jolie shared the news of her bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM), on the basis of her BRCA1 pathogenic variant status. We evaluated the impact of this news on rates of CRRM in women with increased risk for developing breast cancer after being diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. The prospective cohort study included all women with at least a moderate lifetime risk of developing breast cancer who attended our family history clinic (1987–2019) and were subsequently diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. Rates of CRRM were then compared between patients diagnosed with breast cancer before and after Angelina Jolie’s announcement (pre- vs. post-AJ). Of 386 breast cancer patients, with a mean age at diagnosis of 48 ± 8 years, 268 (69.4%) were diagnosed in the pre-AJ period, and 118 (30.6%) in the post-AJ period. Of these, 123 (31.9%) underwent CRRM, a median 42 (interquartile range: 11–54) days after the index cancer surgery. Rates of CRRM doubled following AJ’s news, from 23.9% pre-AJ to 50.0% post AJ (p < 0.001). Rates of CRRM were found to decrease with increasing age at breast cancer (p < 0.001) and tumour TNM stage (p = 0.040), and to increase with the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer (p < 0.001) and tumour grade (p = 0.015) on univariable analysis. After adjusting for these factors, the step-change increase in CRRM rates post-AJ remained significant (odds ratio: 9.61, p < 0.001). The AJ effect appears to have been associated with higher rates of CRRM amongst breast cancer patients with increased cancer risk. CRRM rates were highest amongst younger women and those with the highest lifetime risk profile. Clinicians need to be aware of how media news can impact on the delivery of cancer related services. Communicating objective assessment of risk is important when counselling women on the merits of risk-reducing surgery.

Surgical Treatment after Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Young Women with Breast Cancer: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate eligibility for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) pre- and post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), and trends in the surgical treatment of young breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Young women with breast cancer are more likely to present with larger tumors and aggressive phenotypes, and may benefit from NST. Little is known about how response to NAC influences surgical decisions in young women.

METHODS

The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study (YWS), a multicenter prospective cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, enrolled 1302 patients from 2006 to 2016. Disease characteristics, surgical recommendations, and reasons for choosing mastectomy among BCS-eligible patients were obtained through the medical record. Trends in use of NST, rate of clinical and pathologic complete response (cCR and pCR), and surgery were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1117 women with unilateral stage I-III breast cancer, 315 (28%) received NST. Pre-NST, 26% were BCS eligible, 17% were borderline eligible, and 55% were ineligible. After NST, BCS eligibility increased from 26% to 42% (p < 0.0001). Among BCS-eligible patients after NST (n = 133), 41% chose mastectomy with reasons being patient preference (53%), BRCA or TP53 mutation (35%) and family history (5%). From 2006 to 2016, the rates of NST (p = 0.0012), cCR (p < 0.0001) and bilateral mastectomy (p < 0.0001) increased, but the rate of BCS did not increase (p = 0.34).

CONCLUSION

While the proportion of young women eligible for BCS increased after NST, many patients choose mastectomy, suggesting that surgical decisions are often driven by factors beyond extent of disease and treatment response.

Bilateral immediate two-stage breast reconstruction in patients with unilateral breast cancer: Outcomes analysis and risk assessment

INTRODUCTION

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy has the potential to decrease the occurrence of cancer and reduce psychological burden. However, it is known that complications after bilateral mastectomy are higher compared with unilateral mastectomy. Our goal was to evaluate outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy and to compare complication rates between therapeutic and prophylactic sides.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records of patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with expanders were reviewed. Postoperative complications were compared between therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy sides.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were analyzed. The overall complication rate after both stages was 23.9% on the therapeutic side and 16.5% on the prophylactic side. Infection was the most common complication on both sides. All infections on the prophylactic mastectomy side were successfully treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics (salvage rate of 100%), whereas 35.7% of infected tissue expander/implants on the therapeutic mastectomy side were explanted despite treatment.

CONCLUSION

Careful counselling of patients undergoing elective contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is essential as complications can develop in either breast after reconstruction.

Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in genetically high risk newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients.

METHODS

As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM.

RESULTS

Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM.

CONCLUSION

The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.

Rate of BRCA mutation in patients tested under NCCN genetic testing criteria

BACKGROUND

BRCA genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in breast cancer patients who meet specific criteria. Limited data are available on the likelihood of detecting a mutation when these guidelines are followed.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review examined patients with breast cancer who underwent BRCA testing based on NCCN guidelines.

RESULTS

Twelve (6.0%) of the 199 patients had a deleterious BRCA mutation. Family history of BRCA mutations (50%, p = 0.019), age ≤45 at diagnosis (9.7%, p = 0.034) and meeting ≥3 NCCN criteria (13.3%, p = 0.03) yielded the highest rates of BRCA mutation. Having a family history of BRCA mutation and age ≤45 were associated with increased rate of BRCA mutation on multivariate analysis (OR 14.3, CI 1.2-166.3; OR 11.6, CI 1.2-108.6).

CONCLUSION

Select NCCN criteria are associated with higher rates of BRCA mutations. Waiting for genetic testing results to guide surgical management may be warranted in this subset of patients.

Impact of genetic counseling on the uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among younger women with breast cancer

Background: Preoperative genetic testing affects the surgical decision-making among women with breast cancer. To avoid breast-conserving surgery and to offer the possibility of mastectomy with immediate reconstruction in high-risk patients, genetic testing for pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 and a pedigree-based familial breast cancer risk assessment was offered to younger women with breast cancer in Denmark. We evaluated the impact of the risk stratification through genetic counseling on the uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM).Material and methods: The prospective cohort study included all women with unilateral breast cancer before the age of 45 who participated in a genetic counseling program during their primary diagnostics in the Central Denmark Region (2013-2018). Each patient was followed from the time of the genetic test result to the end of follow-up to estimate the long-term uptake of CPM as a competing risk-adjusted cumulative incidence. We compared the uptake of CPM between the various genetic risk categories, ages of onset, and family histories in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, reporting hazard ratios (HR) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: 156 females, aged 21-44, learned their genetic test result within a median of 92 days [interquartile range (IQR): 75-114]. The maximal follow-up was 3.8 years (median 1.8; IQR: 0.49-2.5), after which 33% (95% CI: 24-42%) of the patients had undergone CPM. The uptake of CPM was inversely associated with the age of onset (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.98) and significantly higher among BRCA carriers (HR 2.9; 95% CI: 1.3-6.8) and patients from the high risk of breast cancer families (HR 5.6; 95% CI: 1.9-16) compared to the lower genetic risk categories.Conclusion: The risk stratification obtained through genetic counseling had a considerable impact on the surgical decision-making among younger women with breast cancer at long-term follow-up.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons' Knowledge and Comfort of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Evolution of Operative Technique for Mastectomy

The radical mastectomy was the mainstay of breast cancer treatment through the majority of the twentieth century. However, as the understanding of breast cancer increased, the indications for more extensive surgical intervention decreased. The mastectomy has evolved so that skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy can be performed in the majority of women who undergo mastectomy currently. Today, nearly 40% of all women undergo mastectomy for breast cancer. The improved cosmetic appearance associated with skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomies does not compromise oncologic outcomes.

Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Complications following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Acellular Dermal Matrix Implant-based Breast Reconstruction-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix was introduced in breast reconstruction in 2001 and is gradually becoming a standard component for immediate breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy. The reconstructive technique allows for improved aesthetic outcomes. However, there seems to be uncertainty regarding complication rates. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate complication rates related to this method.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for reviews and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Relevant databases were searched for in the literature concerning the use of acellular dermal matrix in implant-based nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. All studies underwent detailed quality assessment. Summarized outcome rates were computed using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine of 1,039 studies were eligible for inclusion yielding 778 procedures. The quality was acceptable for all included studies. The meta-analysis found the rate of skin necrosis to be 11%, nipple necrosis 5%, infection in 12%, hematoma in 1%, treated seroma in 5%, explantation 4%, and unplanned return to the operating room in 9%.

CONCLUSION

The use of acellular dermal matrix in nipple-sparing mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction can be done with acceptable complication rates in selected patients. We recommend future studies to include specific definitions when reporting complication rates. Furthermore, future studies should elaborate on demographic characteristics of the included study samples and include predictor analysis to enhance knowledge of high risk patients.

Non-BRCA1/2 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes: A New Frontier with Clinical Consequences for Plastic Surgeons

Twenty percent of breast cancer cases may be related to a genetic mutation conferring an increased risk of malignancy. The most common and prominent breast cancer susceptibility genes are BRCA1 and BRCA2, found in nearly 40% of such cases. However, continued interest and investigation of cancer genetics has led to the identification of a myriad of different breast cancer susceptibility genes. Additional genes, each with unique significance and associated characteristics, continue to be recognized. Concurrently, advanced genetic testing, while still controversial, has become more accessible and cost-effective. As oncologic and reconstructive advances continue to be made in prophylactic breast reconstructive surgery, patients may present to plastic surgeons with an increasingly more diverse array of genetic diagnoses to discuss breast reconstruction. It is therefore imperative that plastic surgeons be familiar with these breast cancer susceptibility genes and their clinical implications. We, therefore, aim to review the most common non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer susceptibility genetic mutations in an effort to assist plastic surgeons in counseling and managing this unique patient population. Included in this review are syndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes such as TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, among others. Nonsyndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes herein reviewed include PALB2, CHEK2, and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons can play a central role in the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, including successful breast reconstruction, of all patients carrying genetic mutations conferring increased risk for breast malignancies.

The Shifting Paradigm for Breast Cancer Surgery in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Surgical therapy for newly diagnosed breast cancer has changed over the past decade, but these trends have not been well documented in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy (NAC).

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we selected 285,514 women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer who underwent NAC or adjuvant therapy (AC) from 2006 to 2014. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM), and bilateral mastectomy (BM) rates were compared between patients undergoing NAC and AC.

RESULTS

Of 285,514 women, 68,850 (24.1%) underwent NAC. Of NAC patients, 18,158 (26.4%) underwent BM and 27,349 (39.7%) BCS compared with 31,886 (14.7%) and 120,626 (55.7%) AC patients, respectively. From 2006 to 2014, BM increased from 16.1 to 28.8% (p < 0.001) for NAC and from 7.4 to 17.5% (p < 0.001) for AC. After adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors, NAC patients were 1.50 times [odds ratio (OR) 1.50, confidence interval (CI) 1.42-1.51] more likely to undergo BM then AC patients. The difference in BM rates between patients receiving NAC versus AC varied significantly by cT classification. This difference was the greatest among cT1 tumors between NAC and AC (31.7 vs. 13.0%, p < 0.001), followed by cT2 tumors (24.1 vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001) and cT3 tumors (24.3 vs. 22.3%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

More NAC patients are undergoing BM while fewer are undergoing BCS compared with patients undergoing AC. This trend is particularly striking for those patients with smaller tumors who would otherwise be candidates for BCS.

Psychosocial factors associated with the uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers with newly diagnosed breast cancer

PURPOSE

Women who are newly diagnosed with breast cancer may consider contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to reduce their future risk of cancer in their unaffected breast. Pre-surgical BRCA1/2 genetic testing can provide valuable risk information to guide this choice. However, little is understood about why BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, who are generally not at substantially elevated risk of contralateral disease, select CPM.

METHODS

We examined the uptake of CPM among breast cancer patients identified as BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers (n = 92) as part of a larger prospective study of the impact of pre-surgical BRCA1/2 testing. Data obtained from self-report questionnaires and patient medical records were used to examine associations between theoretically relevant background and psychosocial factors and BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' decisions to undergo CPM.

RESULTS

Among BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, 25% (n = 23) elected to undergo CPM. Psychosocial factors including a self-reported physician recommendation for CPM, greater perceived contralateral breast cancer risk, and greater perceived benefits of CPM were all significantly associated with the uptake of CPM.

CONCLUSIONS

A sizeable minority of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers choose to undergo CPM after learning their mutation status through pre-surgical genetic testing. BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' cognitive perceptions and social influences appear to be important in shaping their decisions regarding CPM. This work highlights the importance of several psychosocial factors in influencing patients' surgical decisions. Future research is needed that examines the formation of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' beliefs regarding their disease and available treatment options, and that characterizes the physician-patient communication that occurs in this complex decision-making context.

Impact of an In-visit Decision Aid on Patient Knowledge about Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported that breast cancer patients have limited understanding about the oncologic outcomes following contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We hypothesized that an in-visit decision aid (DA) would be associated with higher patient knowledge about the anticipated short and long term outcomes of CPM.

METHODS

We piloted a DA which used the SCOPED: (Situation, Choices, Objectives, People, Evaluation and Decision) framework. Knowledge, dichotomized as "low" (≤3 correct) versus "high" (≥4 correct), was assessed immediately after the visit by a 5 item survey. There were 97 DA patients (response rate 62.2 %) and 114 usual care (UC) patients (response rate 71.3 %).

RESULTS

Patient demographic factors were similar between the two groups. Twenty-one (21.7 %) patients in the DA group underwent CPM compared with 18 (15.8 %) in the UC group (p = 0.22). Mean and median knowledge levels were significantly higher in the DA group compared with the UC group for patients of all ages, tumor stage, race, family history, anxiety levels, worry about CBC, and surgery type. Eighty-six (78.9 %) of UC versus 35 (37.9 %) DA patients had low knowledge. Of patients who underwent CPM, 15 (83.3 %) in the UC cohort versus 5 (25.0 %) of DA patients had "low" knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge was higher in the DA group. The UC group had approximately three times the number of patients of the DA group who were at risk for making a poorly informed decision to have CPM. Future studies should assess the impact of increased knowledge on overall CPM rates.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: current perspectives

There has been an increasing trend in the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the United States among women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer, particularly young women. Approximately one-third of women <40 years old are undergoing CPM in the US. Most studies have shown that the CPM trend is mainly patient-driven, which reflects a changing environment for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The most common reason that women choose CPM is based on misperceptions about CPM’s effect on survival and overestimation of their contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. No prospective studies have shown survival benefit to CPM, and the CBC rate for most women is low at 10 years. Fear of recurrence is also a big driver of CPM decisions. Nonetheless, studies have shown that women are mostly satisfied with undergoing CPM, but complications and subsequent surgeries with reconstruction have been associated with dissatisfaction with CPM. Studies on surgeon’s perspectives on CPM are sparse but show that the most common reasons surgeons discuss CPM with patients is because of a suspicious family history or for a patient who is a confirmed BRCA mutation carrier. Studies on the cost–effectiveness of CPM have been conflicting and are highly dependent on patient’s quality of life after CPM. Most recent guidelines for CPM are contradictory. Future areas of research include the development of interventions to better inform patients about CPM, modification of the guidelines to form a more consistent statement, longer term studies on CBC risk and CPM’s effect on survival, and prospective studies that track the psychosocial effects of CPM on body image and sexuality.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy: A contemporary perspective

Increasing numbers of women are undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy, and evidence to support its use for cancer treatment and prophylaxis is expanding. An understanding of technical aspects and pitfalls of the procedure is paramount to ensure that the best results are attained. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:883-890. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.