Surgeons' Perspectives of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

Current Status of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Investigating Structural Racial Disparity

BACKGROUND

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) remains a personal decision, influenced by psychosocial factors, including cosmesis and peace of mind. Although use of CPM is disproportionately low among Black patients, the degree to which these disparities are driven by patient- vs hospital-level factors remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing mastectomy for nonmetastatic ductal or lobular breast cancer were tabulated using the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2020. The primary endpoint was receipt of CPM. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed with interaction terms between Black-serving hospital (BSH) status and patient race to evaluate associations with CPM. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate long-term survival.

RESULTS

Of 597,845 women studied, 70,911 (11.9%) were Black. After multivariable adjustment, Black race (adjusted odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) and treatment at BSH (adjusted odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.85) were independently linked to lower odds of CPM. Although predicted probability of CPM was universally lower at higher BSH, Black patients faced a steeper reduction compared with White patients. Receipt of CPM was linked to improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86), whereas Black race was associated with a greater HR of 10-year mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals serving a greater proportion of Black patients are less likely to use CPM, suggestive of disparities in access to CPM at the institutional level. Further research and education are needed to characterize surgeon-specific and institutional practices in patient counseling and shared decision-making that shape disparities in access to CPM.

Decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients related to contralateral prophylactic mastectomy-a systematic meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

PURPOSE

Currently, the choice of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer patients is variable and controversial. Breast cancer patients must make complex and rapid decisions based on the benefits and risks of CPM. Although there are many qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients, there is a lack of synthesis of these qualitative studies. Our study goals were to conduct a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on the decision-making experiences, real-life experiences, psychological feelings and needs of breast cancer patients in CPM decision-making, with the aim of providing information to support the development of CPM practice decisions.

METHODS

Using a meta-ethnographic approach, qualitative research studies were analysed and synthesised using the method of "reciprocal translational analysis", and themes related to the decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients with respect to CPM were identified.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-three documents were retrieved. This meta-synthesis ultimately collected 8 studies. Four themes were identified: (1) decision motivations for survival and body intention; (2) negative and vacillating decision emotions; (3) diverse but weak decision support; (4) short-term satisfaction but long-term unknown and differentiated decision effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that although patients had different feelings about the effects of CPM in detail, most patients were satisfied with the short-term effects of CPM, but the long-term effects of CPM were still unknown. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) in May 2022 (Registration number: CRD42022334260).

EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

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.

How Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Does the Body, or Why Epistemology Alone Cannot Explain this Controversial Breast Cancer Treatment

Since the late 1990s, the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer has been on the rise. Over the past two decades, dozens of studies have been conducted in order to understand this trend, which has puzzled and frustrated physicians who find it at odds with efforts to curb the surgical overtreatment of breast cancer, as well as with evidence-based medicine, which has established that the procedure has little oncologic benefit for most patients. Based on the work of Annemarie Mol and John Law, this paper argues that these efforts to understand increased CPM use are limited by the "epistemology problem" in medicine, or, in other words, the tendency to view healthcare controversies and decision making exclusively through the lenses of objective and subjective forms of knowledge. Drawing on public discourse about rationales for choosing CPM, we argue that this surgical trend cannot adequately be understood in terms of what doctors and patients know about breast cancer risk and how CPM affects that risk. In addition, it must be recognized as the outcome of how specific practices of screening, detection, and treatment do or enact the bodies of patients, producing tensions in their lives that cannot be remedied with better or better communicated information. Recognizing the embodied realities of these enactments and their effects on patient decision making, we maintain, is essential for physicians who want to avoid the paternalism that haunts breast cancer treatment in the US.

Surgical Decision-Making Surrounding Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Comparison of Treatment Goals, Preferences, and Psychosocial Outcomes from a Multicenter Survey of Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Differences in patient characteristics and decision-making preferences have been described between those who elect breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM), or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for breast cancer. However, it is not known whether preferred and actual decision-making roles differ across these surgery types, or whether surgery choice reflects a woman's goals or achieves desired outcomes.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer across eight large medical centers responded to a mailed questionnaire regarding treatment decision-making goals, roles, and outcomes. These data were linked to electronic medical records. Differences were assessed using descriptive analyses and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 750 study participants: 60.1% BCS, 17.9% UM, and 22.0% CPM. On multivariate analysis, reducing worry about recurrence was a more important goal for surgery in the CPM group than the others. Although women's preferred role in the treatment decision did not differ by surgery, the CPM group was more likely to report taking a more-active-than-preferred role than the BCS group. On multivariate analysis that included receipt of additional surgery, posttreatment worry about both ipsilateral and contralateral recurrence was higher in the BCS group than the CPM group (both p < 0.001). The UM group was more worried than the CPM group about contralateral recurrence only (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with CPM were more likely to report being able to reduce worry about recurrence as a very important goal for surgery. They were also the least worried about ipsilateral breast recurrence and contralateral breast cancer almost two years postdiagnosis.

Understanding Stakeholder Preference for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Conjoint Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing numbers of women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing CPM, quantitative evidence of all stakeholder preferences regarding CPM is lacking, particularly for healthy volunteers. Conjoint analysis, a marketing tool, can be used to quantify tradeoffs surrounding CPM.

STUDY DESIGN

The objective of this study was to quantify preferences for aspects of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) decision-making process among key stakeholders. Healthy volunteers, women with cancer (WwCa), surgical oncologists, and plastic surgeons were surveyed with the same conjoint simulation exercise. Respondents chose between either single (SM) or double (DM) mastectomy under varying recurrence and complication rates, surveillance, and symmetry conditions. Hierarchical Bayesian models calculated partworth utilities and importance scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,244 respondents participated. The top 3 important factors for all stakeholders were surgical complication rates after DM, type of surgery (SM vs DM) independent of other variables, and 10-year future contralateral cancer risk after SM. HV and surgeons placed greatest importance on high rates of surgical complications after DM. WwCa preferred DM, regardless of complication risk or low rates of a 10-year future cancer episode after SM. Surgical oncologists strongly preferred SM and were more accepting of future cancer risk of 3% or 10% than other stakeholders. Symmetry and need for surveillance were least important factors for all stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The threshold of acceptability for future cancer episodes and risk tolerance for complications varies by stakeholder, with a profound influence upon WwCA. Current findings suggest room for improved provider and patient alignment through behavioral techniques, such as framing, meanwhile highlighting changes in risk perception after a breast cancer diagnosis.

Development of Machine Learning Algorithms for the Prediction of Financial Toxicity in Localized Breast Cancer Following Surgical Treatment

PURPOSE

Financial burden caused by cancer treatment is associated with material loss, distress, and poorer outcomes. Financial resources exist to support patients but identification of need is difficult. We sought to develop and test a tool to accurately predict an individual's risk of financial toxicity based on clinical, demographic, and patient-reported data prior to initiation of breast cancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We surveyed 611 patients undergoing breast cancer therapy at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We collected data using the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) patient-reported outcome measure alongside other financial indicators (credit score, income, and insurance status). We also collected clinical and perioperative data. We trained and tested an ensemble of machine learning (ML) algorithms (neural network, regularized linear model, support vector machines, and a classification tree) to predict financial toxicity. Data were randomly partitioned into training and test samples (2:1 ratio). Predictive performance was assessed using area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristics-curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

In our test sample (N = 203), 48 of 203 women (23.6%) reported significant financial burden. The algorithm ensemble performed well to predict financial burden with an AUROC of 0.85, accuracy of 0.82, sensitivity of 0.85, and specificity of 0.81. Key clinical predictors of financial burden from the linear model were neoadjuvant therapy (βregularized, .11) and autologous, rather than implant-based, reconstruction (βregularized, .06). Notably, radiation and clinical tumor stage had no effect on financial burden.

CONCLUSION

ML models accurately predicted financial toxicity related to breast cancer treatment. These predictions may inform decision making and care planning to avoid financial distress during cancer treatment or enable targeted financial support. Further research is warranted to validate this tool and assess applicability for other types of cancer.

Impact of age, rurality and distance in predicting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer in a Midwestern state: a population-based study

PURPOSE

Iowa is among several rural Midwestern states with the highest proportions of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women < 45 years of age. We evaluated the role of rurality and travel distance in these surgical patterns.

METHODS

Women with unilateral breast cancer (2007-2017) were identified using Iowa Cancer Registry records. Patients and treating hospitals were classified as metro, nonmetro, and rural based on Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and median travel distance (MTD) were compared. Characteristics associated with CPM were evaluated with multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

22,158 women were identified: 57% metro, 26% nonmetro and 18% rural. Young rural women had the highest proportion of CPM (52%, 39% and 40% for rural, metro, nonmetro women < 40 years). Half of all rural women had surgery at metro hospitals; these women had the longest MTD (62 miles). Among all women treated at metro hospitals, rural women had the highest proportion of CPM (17% rural vs 14% metro/nonmetro, p = 0.007). On multivariate analysis, traveling ≥ 50 miles (ORs 1.43-2.34) and rural residence (OR = 1.29) were independently predictive of CPM. Other risk factors were young age (< 40 years: OR = 7.28, 95% CI 5.97-8.88) and surgery at a metro hospital that offers reconstruction (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.65-3.21) and is not NCI-designated (OR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.92-2.86).

CONCLUSION

There is an unexpectedly high proportion of CPM in young rural women in Iowa, and travel distance and availability of reconstructive services likely influence decision-making. Improving access to multidisciplinary care in rural states may help optimize decision-making.

The Influence of Patient Exposure to Breast Reconstruction Approaches and Education on Patient Choices in Breast Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The landscape of surgical and medical management and patient choices for breast cancer treatment changes as breast reconstruction and oncoplastic approaches improve and diversify. Increased access to breast reconstruction, in addition to patient education, influences the breast cancer patient. Therefore, the examination of the possible impact of reconstructive surgery on all stages of the breast cancer management per se seemed timely.

METHODS

Plastic surgery consults were arranged for 520 new patients diagnosed with breast cancer (2012-2016) including patients with noninvasive breast cancer but at high risk of further cancer development. To test the plastic surgery impact on patient choices regarding the management of the cancer, a subset of 90 patients was identified to test the plastic surgery impact on patient choices. These patients were referred to plastic surgery, following the first round of consultations by surgical and medical oncologists with only the preliminary oncological management plan defined. After a plastic surgery consultation, but prior to finalization of the overall oncological management plan, they were surveyed on the subject of modification of their personal choices and requests pertaining to their cancer management.

RESULTS

In this subset of 90 patients 40 (44%) returned to their surgical or medical oncologist considering changes of the primary management plan after their plastic surgery consultation. Twenty-six (28%) ultimately altered their plan, and the following patient-driven changes were made: mastectomy as opposed to lumpectomy (18 patients [20%]), contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (11 patients [12%]), nipple/areola removal as opposed to nipple/areola sparing suggested by the oncologists (5 patients [6%]), oncoplastic breast reduction as part of lumpectomy (5 patients [6%]), and other modifications (3 patients [3%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions for altering the preliminary oncologic plan or choosing a specific alternative (eg, lumpectomy plus radiation vs mastectomy) resulted from patient education on (1) reconstructive options, (2) aesthetic pitfalls and results. and (3) their interfacing with the oncological outcomes. Ultimately, plastic surgeons influence the multispecialty breast cancer management and patient decision-making process. Therefore, oncological literacy for plastic surgeons is essential to provide state-of-the-art breast cancer care and avoidance of suboptimal patient decisions.

Differences in physician opinions about controversial issues surrounding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM): A survey of physicians from accredited breast centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Indications and insurance coverage for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and CPM as a quality measure are controversial. Few studies have examined physician opinions on these issues.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of multi-specialty physicians at the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers from 2017-2018 examined opinions on insurance coverage for CPM, CPM as a quality measure, and indications for CPM. A multivariate logistic regression was used to assess physician and facility factors associated with likelihood to recommend CPM.

RESULTS

Of 2412 physicians, 1226 responded from 382 facilities for a physician response rate of 50.8%. There were 300 (24.5%) medical oncologists, 316 (25.8%) radiation oncologists, 248 (20.2%) plastic surgeons, and 322 (26.3%) oncologic or general surgeons. Three hundred and ninety-eight (37%) physicians favor insurance coverage for all patients and 520 (46.6%) for patients at average CBC risk. Four hundred and fifty (40%) of all physicians felt physician specific rates of CPM should be a hospital quality measure. BRCA deleterious mutation carrier status was the most common indication to recommend CPM (n = 1043; 92%) and 684 (60.2%) physicians discourage CPM for average contralateral risk (CBC) patients. After adjusting for physician and facility factors, the only significant predictor of higher likelihood to recommend CPM for average CBC risk patients were plastics surgeons (OR = 8.3 (95%CI 2.4-29.1)) P = .0009).

CONCLUSION

There is consensus among physicians on the most appropriate indication for CPM but opinions vary on CPM as a quality measure and insurance coverage for CPM. These findings can help guide discussions on CPM among a multidisciplinary team of physicians.

Comment répondre aux demandes de mastectomie prophylactique controlatérale après un cancer du sein hors prédisposition génétique ? Perspectives éthiques et cliniques

Les mastectomies prophylactiques controlatérales sont proposées aux patientes présentant une prédisposition génétique ou étant à haut risque familial. Elles augmentent en dehors de ces contextes, alorsmême que la procédure n’apporte pas de bénéfice sur le risque de récidive du cancer du sein. À une époque où l’on prône l’autonomie des patients, quelle place peut-on laisser à la responsabilité du soignant ? Nous verrons comment l’éthique et la clinique viennent mettre un cadre à une médecine devenue toute-puissante.

The changing surgical treatment of breast cancer in the United States: The tipping point

The surgical management of breast cancer began to change in the middle of the last decade. The use of unilateral mastectomy decreased while the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer increased sixfold from 1998 to 2011. The use of immediate breast reconstruction increased from 30% in 2005 to 45% in 2012. Four changes came together in the middle of the last decade to cause this paradigm shift in the surgical management of early breast cancer. (a) Breast MRI would be available in nearly 75% of breast imaging centers. (b) Genetic counseling would become a standard of care for patients with potential hereditary breast cancer. (c) In 2006, the FDA would approve the use of silicone-gel implants. (d) Nipple-sparing mastectomy would become a standard of care in the treatment of early breast cancer.

Physician Knowledge of Breast Cancer Recurrence and Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk is Associated with Increased Recommendations for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: a Survey of Physicians at NAPBC-Accredited Centers

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has been shown to influence whether a patient chooses CPM. Few studies have explored physician knowledge about contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and local recurrence (LR) risk and whether knowledge is associated with recommendation for CPM.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of physicians at National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers-accredited breast centers across the USA. Physician knowledge levels of CBC and LR were assessed and correlated with recommendations for CPM.

RESULTS

A total of 2412 physicians were surveyed with a 51% response rate (n = 1226). The results showed that 66% had correct knowledge about CBC risk and 57% had correct knowledge about LR. Moreover, 634 had high knowledge, viz. 176 (55.4%) breast surgeons, 171 (58.0%) medical oncologists, 196 (62.0%) radiation oncologists, and 72 (29.9%) plastic surgeons (p < 0.01). Compared with high knowledge, low knowledge was associated with favoring insurance coverage for patients at average CBC risk (53.8% vs. 39.8%, p < 0.01). Low knowledge was also associated with feeling that CPM was indicated in patients with high recurrence anxiety (39.2% vs. 28.9%), young patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative cancer (25.3% vs. 18.5%), and patients with two first-degree relatives with breast cancer (40.0% vs. 32.3%) (all p < 0.01). Multivariable analysis found physician type [odds ratio (OR) 3.76 for surgeons] and low knowledge (OR 1.46) to be significant independent predictors of favoring insurance coverage for CPM in patients at average risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician knowledge about CBC and LR could be improved. Lower knowledge is associated with favorable physician recommendations for CPM. It is not clear whether improving physician knowledge will change recommendations for CPM.

Striving to Do No Harm and Yet Respect Patient Autonomy: Plastic Surgeons' Perspectives of the Consultation for Breast Reconstruction with Women Who Have Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have doubled over the last decade among women considered low risk for developing contralateral breast cancer. Despite the strong association between CPM and breast reconstruction, little is known about the clinical encounter between patients and plastic surgeons. A qualitative study was performed to understand how plastic surgeons describe their roles in the treatment decision-making process through their consultations with women who have unilateral early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with Ontario plastic surgeons were conducted. An inductive and interpretive thematic approach was initially used to analyze the data. The four principles of biomedical ethics then served as the conceptual lens to interpret the findings.

RESULTS

The participants in this study were 18 plastic surgeons, and data saturation was reached. Four themes were identified: maintaining non-maleficence, supporting patient autonomy, delivering (un)equal health care, and providing care to enhance well-being. The ongoing push-pull between competing ethical principles was the overarching theme, specifically, striving to balance parallel responsibilities to do no harm while also respecting patients' rights to make their own healthcare decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient-centric climate, it is important to acknowledge that patients may value outcomes such as achieving greater peace of mind above other clinical factors and are willing to incur additional risks to achieve these goals. Shared decision-making will help to reveal the rationale underlying each individual's treatment choice, which in turn will allow physicians to appropriately weigh patient requests with the best available medical evidence when counseling women on decision-making for breast cancer care.

Perspectives on the Costs of Cancer Care: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment costs are not routinely addressed in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery. Thus, we sought to characterize cost awareness and communication among surgeons treating breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a self-administered, confidential electronic survey among members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons from 1 July to 15 September 2018. Questions were based on previously published or validated survey items, and assessed surgeon demographics, cost sensitivity, and communication. Descriptive summaries and cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistics were used, with exact tests where warranted, to assess findings.

RESULTS

Of those surveyed (N = 2293), 598 (25%) responded. Surgeons reported that 'risk of recurrence' (70%), 'appearance of the breast' (50%), and 'risks of surgery' (47%) were the most influential on patients' decisions for breast cancer surgery; 6% cited out-of-pocket costs as significant. Over half (53%) of the surgeons agreed that doctors should consider patient costs when choosing cancer treatment, yet the majority of surgeons (58%) reported 'infrequently' (43%) or 'never' (15%) considering patient costs in medical recommendations. The overwhelming majority (87%) of surgeons believed that patients should have access to the costs of their treatment before making medical decisions. Surgeons treating a higher percentage of Medicaid or uninsured patients were more likely to consistently consider costs (p < 0.001). Participants reported that insufficient knowledge or resources (61%), a perceived inability to help with costs (24%), and inadequate time (22%) impeded cost discussions. Notably, 20% of participants believed that discussing costs might impact the quality of care patients receive.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost transparency remains rare, however in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, improved cost awareness by surgeons has the potential to reduce financial hardship.

Practitioner Opinion on Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: How Do We Steer a Patient-Driven Discussion?

BACKGROUND

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is increasing despite a recent statement from The American Society of Breast Surgeons discouraging average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer (BC) from undergoing CPM. The objective of our study was to conduct a needs assessment of BC health practitioners to gather information about their opinions, attitudes, and experiences surrounding CPM.

METHODS

The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was the theoretical framework for the development of the interview guide. Semistructured interviews were conducted until data saturation with a convenience sample of 16 BC practitioners (Ontario, Canada), including oncologic and reconstructive surgeons, medical oncologists, and nurse navigators.

RESULTS

Nearly all practitioners identified the discussion regarding CPM as patient-initiated. The majority of practitioners (13/16) described their role as supporting the patient in the decision-making process. Practitioners described educating patients on the lack of survival benefit and in general discouraging CPM. Practitioners agreed that most patients demonstrate decisional conflict (11/16) as a barrier to decision-making, and it is a challenge to realign patients' understanding and expectations. Almost all practitioners (15/16) identified a need for information materials to help educate patients on the risks and benefits of CPM and to help realign expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

Practitioners have identified CPM in average-risk women with unilateral BC as a patient-driven phenomenon that is on the rise, despite highlighting the increased risk of complications and lack of survival benefit. Our practitioner needs assessment identifies the need for a dynamic decision aid to help guide the shared decision-making process for practitioners and patients.

Breast Cancer Knowledge and Decisions Made for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Survey of Surgeons and Women in the General Population

BACKGROUND

Decisions made to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, in women at low risk for bilateral disease, are often attributed to a lack of knowledge. This study examines the role knowledge plays in determining surgical treatment for unilateral breast cancer made by laywomen and surgeons for themselves or loved ones.

METHODS

The study cohort had three groups: (1) laywomen in the general population, (2) breast surgeons, and (3) plastic surgeons. Laywomen were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk Crowd Sourcing. Breast and plastic surgeons from nine states were sent electronic surveys. Demographic and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy-specific data on decisions and knowledge were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Surveys from 1333 laywomen, 198 plastic surgeons, and 142 breast surgeons were analyzed. A significantly greater proportion of laywomen in the general population favored contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (67 percent) relative to plastic (50 percent) and breast surgeons (26 percent) (p < 0.0001). Breast surgeons who chose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were younger (p = 0.044) and female (0.012). On assessment of knowledge, 78 percent of laywomen had a low level of breast cancer knowledge. Laywomen with higher levels of breast cancer knowledge had lower odds of choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR, 0.37; 95 percent CI, 0.28 to 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer women are likely to make decisions in favor of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with better breast cancer-specific education. A knowledge gap likely explains the lower rates with which surgeons choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for themselves or loved ones; however, some surgeons who were predominantly young and female favor contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Improving patient education on surgical options for breast cancer treatment is critical, with well-informed decisions as the goal.

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.

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ has been stable in incidence for a decade and has an excellent prognosis. Breast conservation therapy is safe and effective for most patients. Adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy is recommended to reduce the risk of local recurrence. Accelerated partial breast irradiation is a promising alternative to decrease toxicity and improve cosmetic results. Adjuvant hormonal therapy can reduce local recurrence, but should be used cautiously. Future directions in management include developing predictive tools for guidance for use of adjuvant therapy and selecting low-risk patients with ductal carcinoma in situ in whom surgery may be safely omitted.

Association between unilateral or bilateral mastectomy and breast cancer death in patients with unilateral ductal carcinoma

Background

Utilization of bilateral mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer is increasing despite cost and surgical risks with conflicting reports of survival benefit. Current studies evaluating death after bilateral mastectomy have included patients treated both with breast conservation therapy and unilateral mastectomy. In this study, we directly compared breast cancer–specific death of patients who underwent bilateral or unilateral mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer using a matched cohort analysis.

Methods

This was an observational study of women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer from 1998 through 2002, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A 4-to-1 matched cohort of patients was selected including 14,075 patients. Mortality of the groups was compared using Cox proportional hazards models for cause-specific death.

Results

A total of 41,510 patients diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer were included. Unilateral mastectomy was performed in 93% of patients, while bilateral mastectomy was performed in the remaining 7% of patients. When 4-to-1 matching was performed, 11,260 unilateral mastectomy and 2,815 bilateral mastectomy patients were included. Patients with bilateral mastectomy did not have a significantly lower hazard of breast cancer–specific death when compared with patients with unilateral mastectomy (hazard ratio: 0.92 vs 1.00, p=0.11).

Conclusion

Bilateral mastectomy did not provide a clinically or statistically significant breast cancer–specific mortality benefit over unilateral mastectomy based on a matched cohort analysis of a nationwide population database. These findings should be interpreted in the context of patient preference and alternative benefits of bilateral mastectomy.

Current Trends in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive technique, growing evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes, and shifts in mastectomy patterns. Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, instead of unilateral mastectomy or opting for breast conservation. The ascent in prophylactic surgeries correlates temporally to a shift toward prosthetic methods of reconstruction as the most common technique. Factors associated with the choice for implants include younger age, quicker recovery time, along with documented safety and enhanced aesthetic outcomes with newer generations of devices. Despite advances in autologous transfer, its growth is constrained by the greater technical expertise required to complete microsurgical transfer and potential barriers such as poor relative reimbursement. The increased use of radiation as an adjuvant treatment for management of breast cancer has created additional challenges for plastic surgeons who need to consider the optimal timing and method of breast reconstruction to perform in these patients.

Increase in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy conversation online unrelated to decision-making

BACKGROUND

The increased uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among breast cancer patients remains poorly understood. We hypothesized that the increased rate of CPM is represented in conversations on an online breast cancer community and may contribute to patients choosing this operation.

METHODS

We downloaded 328,763 posts and their dates of creation from an online breast cancer community from August 1, 2000, to May 22, 2016. We then performed a keyword search to identify posts which mentioned breast cancer surgeries: contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (n = 7095), mastectomy (n = 10,889), and lumpectomy (n = 9694). We graphed the percentage of CPM-related, lumpectomy-related, and mastectomy-related conversations over time. We also graphed the frequency of posts which mentioned multiple operations over time. Finally, we performed a qualitative study to identify factors influencing the observed trends.

RESULTS

Surgically related posts (e.g., mentioning at least one operation) made up a small percentage (n = 27,678; 8.4%) of all posts on this community. The percentage of surgically related posts mentioning CPM was found to increase over time, whereas the percentage of surgically related posts mentioning mastectomy decreased over time. Among posts that mentioned more than one operation, mastectomy and lumpectomy were the procedures most commonly mentioned together, followed by mastectomy and CPM. There was no change over time in the frequency of posts that mentioned more than one operation. Our qualitative review found that most posts mentioning a single operation were unrelated to surgical decision-making; rather the operation was mentioned only in the context of the patient's cancer history. Conversely, the most posts mentioning multiple operations centered around the patients' surgical decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

CPM-related conversation is increasing on this online breast cancer community, whereas mastectomy-related conversation is decreasing. These results appear to be primarily informed by patients reporting the types of operations they have undergone, and thus appear to correspond to the known increased uptake of CPM.

Patient Reactions to Surgeon Recommendations About Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy for Treatment of Breast Cancer

Importance

Guidelines assert that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) should be discouraged in patients without an elevated risk for a second primary breast cancer. However, little is known about the impact of surgeons discouraging CPM on patient care satisfaction or decisions to seek treatment from another clinician.

Objective

To examine the association between patient report of first-surgeon recommendation against CPM and the extent of discussion about it with 3 outcomes: patient satisfaction with surgery decisions, receipt of a second opinion, and receipt of surgery by a second surgeon.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based survey study was conducted in Georgia and California. We identified 3880 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013-2014 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery (71% response rate, n = 2578). In this analysis conducted from February to May 2016, we included patients with unilateral breast cancer who considered CPM (n = 1140). Patients were selected between July 2013 and September 2014.

Main Outcomes and Measures

We examined report of surgeon recommendations, level of discussion about CPM, satisfaction with surgical decision making, receipt of second surgical opinion, and surgery from a second surgeon.

Results

The mean (SD) age of patients included in this study was 56 (10.6) years. About one-quarter of patients (26.7%; n = 304) reported that their first surgeon recommended against CPM and 30.1% (n = 343) reported no substantial discussion about CPM. Dissatisfaction with surgery decision was uncommon (7.6%; n = 130), controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics. One-fifth of patients (20.6%; n = 304) had a second opinion about surgical options and 9.8% (n = 158) had surgery performed by a second surgeon. Dissatisfaction was very low (3.9%; n = 42) among patients who reported that their surgeon did not recommend against CPM but discussed it. Dissatisfaction was substantively higher for those whose surgeon recommended against CPM with no substantive discussion (14.5%; n = 37). Women who received a recommendation against CPM were not more likely to seek a second opinion (17.1% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 15.1% of others; P = .52) nor to receive surgery by a second surgeon (7.9% among patients with recommendation against CPM vs 8.3% of others; P = .88).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most patients are satisfied with surgical decision making. First-surgeon recommendation against CPM does not appear to substantively increase patient dissatisfaction, use of second opinions, or loss of the patient to a second surgeon.