Commentary on the Consensus Statement of the American Society of Breast Surgeons on Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

Cracking open the eristic rhetoric of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy research or why surgeons should not be so certain about this controversial breast cancer treatment

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is a controversial breast cancer treatment in which both breasts are removed when only one is affected by cancer. Rates of CPM have been rising since the late 1990s, despite surgeons' strong agreement that the procedure should not be performed for average-risk women. This essay analyses that agreement as it is demonstrated in the surgical literature on CPM, arguing that it forms a 'rhetoric of certainty' built on the stark epistemological divide between objective and subjective forms of knowledge that operates in some areas of medicine. Further, the essay argues that this rhetoric of certainty has the potential to function as a kind of eristic rhetoric in which the right conclusion is known prior to any rhetorical exchange. As a way to 'crack open' this certainty, the essay compares the rhetoric of the surgical literature on CPM to the rhetoric of uncertainty in the radiological literature on breast cancer screening for women with a personal history of the disease. The goal of this comparison is not to suggest surgeons should support all choices for CPM. Rather, the aim is to demonstrate that choices against the procedure are not as straightforward as the surgical literature indicates and that the uncertainty affecting women's preferences for CPM is not solely the result of patient misunderstanding and/or emotional instability.

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.

Patient decision aid for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for use in the consultation: a feasibility study

Background

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (cpm) continue to rise internationally despite evidence-based guidance strongly discouraging its use in most women with unilateral breast cancer. The purpose of the present study was to develop and assess the feasibility of a knowledge translation tool [a patient decision aid (da)] designed to enhance evidence-informed shared decision-making about cpm.

Methods

A consultation da was developed using the Ottawa Patient Decision Aid Development eTraining in consultation with clinicians and knowledge translation experts. The final da was then assessed for feasibility with health care professionals and patients across Canada. The assessment involved a survey completed online (health care professionals) or by telephone (patients). Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for closed-ended questions and qualitative content analysis for open-ended questions.

Results

The 51 participants who completed the survey included 39 health care professionals and 12 patients. The da was acceptable; 88% of participants viewed it as having the right amount of information or slightly more or less information than they would like. Almost all participants (98%) felt that the da would prepare patients to make better decisions. The aid was perceived to be usable, with 73% of participants stating that they would be willing to use or share the da.

Conclusions

The cpm patient da developed for the present study was viewed by health care professionals and patients across Canada to be acceptable and usable during the clinical consultation. It holds promise as a knowledge translation tool to be used by clinicians in consultation with women who have unilateral breast cancer to enhance evidence-informed and shared decision-making with respect to undergoing cpm.

Prospective Study of Psychosocial Outcomes of Having Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Women With Nonhereditary Breast Cancer

Purpose The incidence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has continued to increase. We prospectively examined psychosocial outcomes before and up to 18 months after surgery in women who did or did not have CPM. Methods Women with unilateral, nonhereditary breast cancer completed questionnaires before and 1, 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery. Primary psychosocial measures were cancer worry and cancer-specific distress. Secondary measures were body image, quality of life (QOL), decisional satisfaction, and decisional regret. Results A total of 288 women (mean age, 56 years; 58% non-Hispanic white) provided questionnaire data, of whom 50 underwent CPM. Before surgery, women who subsequently received CPM had higher cancer distress ( P = .04), cancer worry ( P < .001), and body image concerns ( P < .001) than women who did not have CPM. In a multivariable repeated measures model adjusted for time, age, race/ethnicity, and stage, CPM was associated with more body image distress ( P < .001) and poorer QOL ( P = .02). There was a significant interaction between time point and CPM group for cancer worry ( P_interaction < .001), suggesting that CPM patients had higher presurgery cancer worry, but their postsurgery worry decreased over time and was similar to the worry of patients who did not have CPM. QOL was similar between CPM groups before surgery but declined 1 month after surgery and remained lower than patients who did not have CPM after surgery ( P_interaction = .05). Conclusion These results may facilitate informed discussions between women and their physicians regarding CPM. Fear and worry may be foremost concerns at the time surgical decisions are made, when women may not anticipate the adverse future effect of CPM on body image and QOL.