Rates Of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Research Articles

Patient-driven decisions and perceptions of the ‘safest possible choice’: insights from patient-provider conversations about how some breast cancer patients choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

Objective Observe patient-clinician communication to gain insight about the reasons underlying the choice of patients with unilateral breast cancer to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), despite lack of survival benefit, risk of harms, and cautions expressed by surgical guidelines and clinicians. Methods & Measures WORDS is a prospective study that explored patient-clinician communication and patient decision making. Participants recorded clinical visits through a downloadable mobile application. We analyzed 44 recordings from 22 patients: 9 who chose CPM, 8 who considered CPM but decided against it, and 5 who never considered CPM. We used abductive analysis combined with constructivist grounded theory methods. Results Decisions to undergo CPM are patient-driven and motivated by perceptions that CPM is the most aggressive, and therefore safest, treatment option available. These decisions are shaped not primarily by the content of conversations with clinicians, but by the history of cancer in patients’ families, their own first-hand experiences with cancers among loved ones, fear for their children, and anxiety about cancer recurrence. Conclusion The perception that CPM is the safest, most aggressive option strongly influences patients, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Future efforts to address high CPM rates should focus on patient-driven decision making and cancer-related fears.

Assessment of the effect of the American Society of Breast Surgery guidelines on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates for unilateral breast cancer

BackgroundIn July 2016, the American Society of Breast Surgeons published guidelines discouraging contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer. We incorporated these into practice with structured patient counseling and aimed to assess the effect of this initiative on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. MethodsWe evaluated female patients with unilateral breast cancer undergoing mastectomy at our institution from January 2011 to November 2022. Variables associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and trends over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ2 analysis as appropriate. ResultsAmong 3,208 patients, (median age 54 years) 1,366 (43%) had a unilateral mastectomy, and 1,842 (57%) also had a concomitant contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Across all patients, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates significantly decreased post-implementation from 2017 to 2019 (55%) vs 2015 to 2016 (62%) (P = .01) but increased from 2020 to 2022 (61%). Immediate breast reconstruction rate was 70% overall (81% with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and 56% without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, P < .001). Younger age, White race, mutation status, and earlier stage were also associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Genetic testing increased from 27% pre-guideline to 74% 2020 to 2022, as did the proportion of patients with a pathogenic variant (4% pre-guideline vs 11% from 2020–2022, P < .001), of whom 91% had a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among tested patients without a pathogenic variant and patients not tested, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates declined from 78% to 67% and 48% to 38% pre -and post-guidelines, respectively, P < .001. ConclusionImplementation of specific patient counseling was effective in decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates. While recognizing that patient choice plays a significant role in the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, further educational efforts are warranted to affect contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates, particularly in the setting of negative genetic testing.

Association of Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Bilateral Disease.

The impact of ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, the three most prevalent moderate-risk breast cancer genes, on surgical decision making is not well known. Our retrospective study included patients with resectable non-metastatic breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between July 2014 and January 2020 with at least one genetic alteration (pathogenic or variant of uncertain significance [VUS] in ATM [n = 49], CHEK [n = 57], or PALB2 [n = 27]). Our objectives were to determine the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and the rate of bilateral breast cancer. Univariable analyses (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to identify factors associated with CPM and bilateral breast cancer. The rate of CPM was 39% (n = 49/127), with 54% (n = 25/46) of patients with a pathogenic mutation and 30% (n = 24/81) of patients with a VUS choosing CPM. On MVA, premenopausal status (odds ratio [OR] 3.46) and a pathogenic alteration (OR 3.01) were associated with increased use of CPM. Bilateral disease was noted in 16% (n = 22/138). Patients with pathogenic mutations had a 22% (n = 11/51) incidence of bilateral breast cancer, while patients with VUS had a 13% (n = 11/87) incidence, although this was not statistically significant on UVA or MVA. On MVA, premenopausal status was associated with a decreased risk of bilateral disease (OR 0.33, p = 0.022). During follow-up, a breast cancer event occurred in 16% (n = 22/138). Our study identified a high rate of CPM among those with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 alterations, including VUS. Further studies are needed to clarify reasons for CPM among patients with moderate-risk alterations.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision-Making: The Partners' Perspective.

The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to rise despite no improvement in survival, an increased risk of surgical complications, and negative effects on quality of life. This study explored the experiences of the partners of women who undergo CPM. This study was part of an investigation into the factors motivating women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer and low genetic risk to opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Participating women were asked for permission to invite their partners to take part in interviews. In-depth interviews with partners were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. A thematic analysis of the data was performed RESULTS: Of 35 partners, all men, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Most perceived their role to be strong and logical. Some hoped their wives would choose a bilateral mastectomy. All felt strongly that the final decision was up to their partners. The partners often framed the decision for CPM as one of life or death. Thus, any aesthetic effects were unimportant by comparison. The male partners had difficulty grasping the physical and emotional changes inherent in mastectomy, which made communicating about sexuality and intimacy very challenging for the couples. In the early recovery period, some noted the stress of managing home life. The experiences of the male partners provide insight into how couples navigate complex treatment decision-making, both together and separately. There may be a benefit to including partners in pre- and post-surgical counseling to mitigate miscommunication regarding the expected oncologic and emotional outcomes related to CPM.

Does a brief surgeon training in negotiation theory principles decrease rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy?

Despite the lack of any oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use among women with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. This patient-driven trend is influenced by fear of recurrence and desire for peace of mind. Traditional educational strategies have been ineffective in reducing CPM rates. Here we employ training in negotiation theory strategies for counseling and determine the effect on CPM rates. In consecutive patients with unilateral breast cancer treated with mastectomy from 05/2017 to 12/2019, we examined CPM rates before and after a brief surgeon training in negotiation skills. This comprised a systematic framework for patient counseling utilizing early setting of the default option, leveraging social proof, and framing. Among 2144 patients, 925 (43%) were treated pre-training and 744 (35%) post-training. Those treated in the 6-month transition period were excluded (n = 475, 22%). Median patient age was 50years; most patients had T1-T2 (72%), N0 (73%), and estrogen receptor-positive (80%) tumors of ductal histology (72%). The CPM rate was 47% pre-training versus 48% post-training, with an adjusted difference of -3.7% (95% CI -9.4 to 2.1, p = 0.2). In a standardized self-assessment survey, all 15 surgeons reported a high baseline use of negotiation skills and no significant change in conversational difficulty with the structured approach. Brief surgeon training did not affect self-reported use of negotiation skills or reduce CPM rates. The choice of CPM is a highly individual decision influenced by patient values and decision styles. Further research to identify effective strategies to minimize surgical overtreatment with CPM is needed.

Abstract P6-05-44: REASONS FOR CHOOSING DELAYED RATHER THAN IMMEDIATE CONTRALATERAL PROPHYLACTIC MASTECTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH UNILATERAL BREAST CANCER

Abstract Background: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have more than doubled in the past decade amongst breast cancer patients irrespective of inherited genetic predisposition related to high penetrance genes. Increasing numbers of women with unilateral breast cancer are opting for removal of both the affected ipsilateral and unaffected contralateral ‘normal’ breast even when suitable for breast conserving surgery. Reasons for requesting CPM include prevention of recurrence, peace of mind and moving on after breast cancer. Some women seek CPM as a delayed procedure but factors influencing this are poorly understood. Methods: A retrospective analysis examined patients undergoing CPM as either an immediate or delayed procedure with or without breast reconstruction (BR) at a single tertiary referral centre between January 2009 and December 2019. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken that was compiled and based on validated questionnaires and responses to defined statements generated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with calculation of mean scores and standard deviation (SD). This questionnaire explored patient’s decision-making process in terms of timing of CPM and any BR and was supported by subjective free-text boxes to gauge qualitative and quantitative aspects of the patient-related decision-making process. Those patients who consented to participate were provided with access to an online questionnaire. Results: Amongst this cohort of 39 delayed CPM patients, there were 6 decliners and therefore questionnaires were issued to the remaining 33 patients. The response rate was 67% (22/33) and the most common reason for seeking delayed CPM was to allow completion of adjuvant treatment recommendations (including radiotherapy/chemotherapy) before surgery on the unaffected breast [mean score 2.91; SD 1.0]. This avoided risk of delay in commencement of adjuvant treatment consequent to potential complications of contralateral surgery (especially with BR). The second most important reason for choosing delayed CPM was unavailability of genetic test results at the time of therapeutic mastectomy [mean score 2.64; SD 1.4]. The third most common reason was a subsequent change in family history cancer history after their personal breast cancer diagnosis that often prompted genetic testing [mean score 2.55; SD 2.7]. Several patients cited a shorter recovery time as a strong reason for requesting delayed CPM. Conclusion: Factors determining delayed CPM are patient-driven and this accords with documented reasons for women seeking CPM in general. Patients tend to make decisions about CPM based on two main themes relating to either ‘fear’ of cancer or a desire to ‘take control’. Temporal factors are important in the context of a delayed procedure and relate to subsequent availability of genetic test results and changes in family history in relatives who were otherwise unaffected at the time of initial diagnosis. Completion of all cancer treatments prior to delayed CPM (with BR) can be advantageous when implant-based BR is planned at the time of an immediate CPM. Radiotherapy can increase capsular contracture rates and surgical complications can delay start of chemotherapy. CPM should be offered as a potentially delayed option with informed discussion of risks and benefits. Citation Format: Chien Lin Soh, Samantha Muktar, Charles M Malata, John R Benson. REASONS FOR CHOOSING DELAYED RATHER THAN IMMEDIATE CONTRALATERAL PROPHYLACTIC MASTECTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH UNILATERAL BREAST CANCER. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-44.

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...

Operating on Anxiety: Negative Affect toward Breast Cancer and Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-removal of the healthy breast following breast cancer diagnosis-have increased, particularly among women for whom CPM provides no survival benefit. Affective (i.e., emotional) decision making is often blamed for this increase. We studied whether greater negative breast cancer affect could motivate uptake of CPM through increased cancer risk perceptions and biased treatment evaluations. We randomly assigned healthy women with average breast-cancer risk (N = 1030; Mage = 44.14, SD = 9.23 y) to 1 of 3 affect conditions (negative v. neutral v. positive narrative manipulation) in a hypothetical online experiment in which they were asked to imagine being diagnosed with cancer in one breast. We assessed 1) treatment choice, 2) affect toward CPM, and 3) perceived risk of future breast cancer in each breast (cancer affected and healthy) following lumpectomy, single mastectomy, and CPM. The manipulation caused women in the negative and neutral narrative conditions (26.9% and 26.4%, respectively) to choose CPM more compared with the positive narrative condition (19.1%). Across conditions, women's CPM affect did not differ. However, exploratory analyses addressing a possible association of affect toward cancer-related targets suggested that women in the negative narrative condition may have felt more positively toward CPM than women in the positive narrative condition. The manipulation did not have significant effects on breast cancer risk perceptions. The manipulation of affect had a small effect size, possibly due to the hypothetical nature of this study and/or strong a priori knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer and its treatment options. Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM. This study used narratives to elicit different levels of negative integral affect toward breast cancer to investigate the effects of affect on breast cancer treatment choices.Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased the choice of double mastectomy over lumpectomy and single mastectomy to treat a hypothetical, early-stage cancer.The narrative manipulation of negative affect toward breast cancer did not change the perceived risks of future cancer following any of the surgical interventions.Negative affect toward breast cancer may have biased affective evaluations of double mastectomy.

Emotion and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Aprospective study into surgical decision-making.

Patients with non-familial, unilateral breast cancer have a low risk of contralateral breast cancer. Thus, clinical studies have shown no survival benefit for patients who undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) compared to those undergoing unilateral surgeries for non-familial unilateral breast cancers. Despite this evidence, there has been a steady increase in rates of CPM in the U.S. Patient factors influencing this choice have been identified in previous studies, but seldom in a prospective manner. This prospective study was designed to assess emotion and any association with a patient's decision to ultimately undergo CPM. We recruited patients with newly diagnosed, unilateral, non-metastatic breast cancer, who had not yet had surgery, to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study to examine the impact of emotions on CPM decision-making. Among the 86 final participants, all completed the pre-visit survey (100%) and 52 patients completed the post-visit survey (60%). Patients undergoing CPM were significantly younger than those who did not. There was no statistically significant association between emotion and receipt of CPM. There was a trend towards undergoing CPM in patients with a less open personality type and those with more negative emotion, though not statistically significant. This study found a trend toward increased CPM receipt in those with less open personality types and more negative emotion, especially post-consultation, but none of these findings was significant. Future work should include development of cancer-specific emotion scales and larger studies of possible connections between emotion, personality type and surgical decision-making for breast cancer patients.

11. Reversal of Trends in U.S. Breast Surgery Rates: An Analysis From 2005-2017 Using Three Nationwide Datasets

Purpose: Despite equivalent oncologic survivorship, U.S. lumpectomy rates previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options such as mastectomy, often performed in conjunction with a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with or without reconstruction. Using three national datasets, this study evaluates longitudinal trends in lumpectomy/mastectomy, CPM, and breast reconstruction rates, determining characteristics most associated with current surgical practice. Methods: Trends in lumpectomy, mastectomy, and reconstruction rates were evaluated using the NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB databases from 2005-2017, further examining mastectomy with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed with Cochran-Armitage Trend tests and Poisson regression. Upon determining a notable reversal in lumpectomy rates in 2013, we compared NCDB lumpectomy patients before (2011) and after (2017) this change. Multivariate logistic regression using NCDB identified predictors of lumpectomy, CPM, and reconstruction. Results: We analyzed 3,467,645 female surgical breast cancer patients. Surgical trends were found to be similar in all three databases. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010-2013, with a significant increase thereafter (NSQIP: +1%/year; SEER +1.6%/year; NCDB: +1.6%/year, all p<0.001). Concurrently there was corresponding decrease in mastectomy rates. Both CPM and reconstruction rates increased significantly from 2005-2013 (p<0.001), but have since stabilized. Age distribution of lumpectomy patients from 2011 to 2017 demonstrated an increase in patients 60-79 years of age with a concurrent increase in the proportion of patients with Medicare (p<0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the strongest predictors of lumpectomy were older age, black race, treatment at a community center, and clinical N0 disease. The strongest predictors of CPM were younger age, white race, and residence in a zip code with a higher median income. The strongest predictors of reconstruction were younger age, white race, private insurance, residence in a zip code with a higher median income, and undergoing CPM. Conclusion: This is the first study to document a reversal of trend in lumpectomy rates since 2013 with an associated decline in mastectomies and stabilization in CPM and reconstruction. While the databases differ in size and population, the trends are consistent among all three databases. Longitudinal data demonstrate a reversal of prior trends which favored more aggressive surgical management of breast cancer. The etiology of the recent reversal in trends is likely multifactorial; however, an increase in age of the breast cancer population is likely related to this change in the trends. This is also the first evidence of level breast reconstruction rates since passage of the WHCRA. Further research is required to understand factors driving these recent practice changes and associated impact on patient reported outcomes.

Analysis of a Trend Reversal in US Lumpectomy Rates From 2005 Through 2017 Using 3 Nationwide Data Sets

Rates of lumpectomy for breast cancer management in the United States previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options, such as mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). To evaluate longitudinal trends in the rates of lumpectomy and mastectomy, including unilateral mastectomy vs CPM rates, and to determine characteristics associated with current surgical practice using 3 national data sets. Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and National Cancer Database (NCDB) were examined to evaluate trends in lumpectomy and mastectomy rates from 2005 through 2017. Mastectomy rates were also evaluated with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed on the NCDB data set to identify predictors of lumpectomy and CPM. A study sample of 3 467 645 female surgical breast cancer patients was analyzed. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010 and 2013, with a significant increase thereafter. Conversely, in comparison with lumpectomy rates, overall mastectomy rates declined significantly starting in 2013. Cochran-Armitage trend tests demonstrated an annual decrease in lumpectomy rates of 1.31% (95% CI, 1.30%-1.32%), 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.12%), and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.16%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively, from 2005 to 2013 (P < .001, P = .01, and P < .001, respectively). From 2013 to 2017, the annual increase in lumpectomy rates was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.95%-0.98%), 1.60% (95% CI, 1.59%-1.62%), and 1.66% (95% CI, 1.65%-1.67%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively (all P < .001). Comparisons of specific mastectomy types showed that unilateral mastectomy and CPM rates stabilized after 2013, with unilateral mastectomy rates remaining higher than CPM rates throughout the entire time period. This observational longitudinal analysis indicated a trend reversal with an increase in lumpectomy rates since 2013 and an associated decline in mastectomies. The steady increase in CPM rates from 2005 to 2013 has since stabilized. The reasons for the recent reversal in trends are likely multifactorial. Further qualitative and quantitative research is required to understand the factors driving these recent practice changes and their associations with patient-reported outcomes.

Nationwide Trends in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomies: An Analysis of 55,060 Unilateral Breast Cancer Patients.

Background:The effects of recent initiatives to better educate unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have not been fully examined. The purpose of this study was to update and examine recent annual CPM trends by evaluating 2015–2020 data from a large administrative claims database. We also sought to determine if there were any variations in trends among different age groups and reconstructive modalities.Methods:Patients diagnosed with UBC between 2015 and 2019 were identified in Optum Clinformatics DataMart. Patients were then categorized by age group, whether they underwent CPM, whether they underwent breast reconstruction (BR), timing of any BR (immediate or delayed), and type of BR (implant-based or autologous).Results:Of 55,060 patients who were diagnosed with UBC, 2625 (4.8%) underwent CPM. After a slight decline from 2015 to 2016, the CPM rate among UBC patients increased significantly from 3.4% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2019. Although this upward trend remained consistent across all age groups examined, younger UBC patients represented a significantly higher and faster growing percentage of those undergoing CPM. BR rates among those who underwent CPM also increased between 2015 and 2019, with implant-based and immediate BR becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR.Conclusions:CPM rates continued to rise between 2016 and 2019 and younger women represented a substantially higher and faster growing percentage of UBC patients undergoing CPM than older women. In addition, implant-based and immediate BR are becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR.

Effects of COVID-19 on mastectomy and breast reconstruction rates: A national surgical sample.

BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic profoundly impacted breast cancer treatment in 2020. Guidelines initially halted elective procedures, subsequently encouraging less invasive surgeries and restricting breast reconstruction options. We examined the effects of COVID‐19 on oncologic breast surgery and reconstruction rates during the first year of the pandemic.MethodsUsing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, we performed an observational examination of female surgical breast cancer patients from 2017 to 2020. We analyzed annual rates of lumpectomy, mastectomy (unilateral/contralateral prophylactic/bilateral prophylactic), and breast reconstruction (alloplastic/autologous) and compared 2019 and 2020 reconstruction cohorts to evaluate the effect of COVID‐19.ResultsFrom 2017 to 2020, 175 949 patients underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without reconstruction. From 2019 to 2020, patient volume declined by 10.7%, unilateral mastectomy rates increased (70.5% to 71.9%, p = 0.003), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates decreased. While overall reconstruction rates were unchanged, tissue expander reconstruction increased (64.0% to 68.4%, p < 0.001) and direct‐to‐implant and autologous reconstruction decreased. Outpatient alloplastic reconstruction increased (65.7% to 73.8%, p < 0.0001), and length of hospital stay decreased for all reconstruction patients (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsIn 2020, there was a nearly 11% decline in breast cancer surgeries, comparable mastectomy and reconstruction rates, increased use of outpatient alloplastic reconstruction, and significantly reduced in‐hospital time across all reconstruction types.

Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?

Background:Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer despite low rates of contralateral recurrence and lack of survival benefit. We aimed to investigate the decisional needs and supports required to ensure adequate and quality decision-making by patients with breast cancer facing the decision regarding CPM.Methods:In this qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews developed with the use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to investigate the decisional needs and supports of women (aged > 18 yr) with nonhereditary breast cancer who had previously discussed CPM with their care provider. Patients were recruited from 2 academic cancer centres in Toronto, Ontario. Interviews were conducted between June 2016 and October 2017. We analyzed responses to the open-ended questions iteratively and inductively to establish major themes within the results.Results:Ten patients were recruited. Eight patients reported having initiated the discussion about CPM. Although most patients reported feeling supported, 6 mentioned some degree of decisional conflict. Cancer risk reduction was the most commonly reported perceived benefit of CPM (9 patients), followed by improved psychologic well-being (7). Most patients (8) did not mention the lack of survival benefit of CPM as a disadvantage of the procedure. Patients indicated that information resources (in 8 cases) and improved counselling from their health care team (in 7) would assist in decision-making.Conclusion:Our findings illustrate the disconnect between true and perceived risks (i.e., surgical risk) and benefits (potential recurrence and survival benefit) of CPM, which is not being managed adequately despite support from the health care team. A decision aid may address unmet patient need by providing a reliable resource regarding the benefits and risks of this procedure, while helping patients understand their values and realign their expectations.

P47. REVERSAL OF TRENDS IN U.S. BREAST SURGERY RATES: AN ANALYSIS FROM 2005-2017 USING THREE NATIONWIDE DATASETS

PURPOSE: Despite equivalent oncologic survivorship, U.S. lumpectomy rates previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options such as mastectomy, often performed in conjunction with a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) with or without reconstruction. Using three national datasets, this study evaluates longitudinal trends in lumpectomy/mastectomy, CPM, and breast reconstruction rates, determining characteristics most associated with current surgical practice. METHODS: Trends in lumpectomy, mastectomy, and reconstruction rates were evaluated using the NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB databases from 2005-2017, further examining mastectomy with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed with Cochran-Armitage Trend tests and Poisson regression. Multivariate logistic regression using NCDB identified predictors of the described surgeries. RESULTS: We analyzed 3,467,645 female surgical breast cancer patients. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010-2013, with a significant increase thereafter (NSQIP: +1%/year; SEER +1.6%/year; NCDB: +1.6%/year, all p<0.001). Concurrently there was corresponding decrease in mastectomy rates. Both CPM and reconstruction rates increased significantly from 2005-2013 (p<0.001), but have since stabilized. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal data demonstrate a reversal of prior trends which favored more aggressive surgical management of breast cancer. This is also the first evidence of level breast reconstruction rates since passage of the WHCRA. Further research is required to understand factors driving these recent practice changes and associated impact on patient reported outcomes.

Association Between Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Among Multiethnic Women Diagnosed With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Increasing usage of multigene panel testing has identified more patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P or LP) variants in low-moderate penetrance genes or variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Our study evaluates the association between genetic test results and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among patients with breast cancer. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among women diagnosed with unilateral stage 0-III breast cancer between 2013 and 2020 who underwent genetic testing. We examined whether genetic test results were associated with CPM using multivariable logistic regression models. Among 707 racially or ethnically diverse women, most had benign or likely benign (B or LB) variants, whereas 12.5% had P or LP and 17.9% had VUS. Racial or ethnic minorities were twice as likely to receive VUS. Patients with P or LP variants had higher CPM rates than VUS or B or LB (64.8% v 25.8% v 25.9%), and highest among women with P or LP variants in high-penetrance genes (74.6%). On multivariable analysis, P or LP compared with B or LB variants were significantly associated with CPM (odds ratio = 4.24; 95% CI, 2.48 to 7.26). Women with P or LP variants on genetic testing were over four times more likely to undergo CPM than B or LB. Those with VUS had similar CPM rates as B or LB. Our findings suggest appropriate genetic counseling and communication of cancer risk to multiethnic breast cancer survivors.

Impact of Race and Place of Origin on Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Rates for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) in the United States 2000-2010

Khubchandani, Jasmine A. MD; Rentas, Courtney M. BA, BS; Coopey, Suzanne B. MD, FACS; Oseni, Tawakalitu O. MD, FACS; Chang, David C. PhD Author Information

Trend and survival benefit of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among men with stage I–III unilateral breast cancer in the USA, 1998–2016

Our study aimed to explore temporal trends and survival benefit of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in male breast cancer (MBC). Men with stage I-III unilateral breast cancer between 1998 and 2016 were identified from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER). We compared CPM rate over the study period using the Cochrane-Armitage test for trend. Logistic regression model was used to test for factors predicting CPM. Survival analysis was conducted in patients who underwent CPM or unilateral mastectomy (UM) with a first diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. Kaplan-Meier curve and univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) between CPM and UM groups. Propensity score matching was adopted to balance baseline characteristics. 5118 MBC cases were included in the present study, with 4.1% (n = 209) patients underwent CPM. The proportion of men undergoing CPM increased from 1.7 in 1998 to 6.3% in 2016 (P < 0.0001). Young age, recent years of diagnosis, higher tumor grade and lower T stage were significantly associated with CPM. A cohort of 3566 patients were enrolled in survival analysis with a median follow-up of 65months. CPM was associated with better OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89, P = 0.022) rather than BCSS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.11, P = 0.153) compared with UM. In propensity score-matched model, CPM was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46-1.52, P = 0.553) and BCSS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39-2.47, P = 0.970). Our study revealed a dramatic increase in CPM utilization among MBC, especially in young patients. However, CPM provides no survival benefit for MBC compared with UM, indicating the decision of CPM should be fully discussed.

Influencers of the Decision to Undergo Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy among Women with Unilateral Breast Cancer.

Simple SummaryIn this survey study, we examined survey responses from 397 women with stage 0 to III unilateral breast cancer and found that partners, physicians, and the media were significant relative to the patient’s own influence in their decision to undergo a CPM. The findings of this study may inform policy by highlighting the need for educational aids, programs, or tools that help women with unilateral breast cancer make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding CPM efficacy.(1) Background: The relatively high rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among women with early stage unilateral breast cancer (BC) has raised concerns. We sought to assess the influence of partners, physicians, and the media on the decision of women with unilateral BC to undergo CPM and identify clinicopathological variables associated with the decision to undergo CPM. (2) Patients and Methods: Women with stage 0 to III unilateral BC who underwent CPM between January 2010 and December 2017. Patients were surveyed regarding factors influencing their self-determined decision to undergo CPM. Partner, physician, and media influence factors were modeled by logistic regressions with adjustments for a family history of breast cancer and pathological stage. (3) Results: 397 (29.6%) patients completed the survey and were included in the study. Partners, physicians, and the media significantly influenced patients’ decision to undergo CPM. The logistic regression models showed that, compared to self-determination alone, overall influence on the CPM decision was significantly higher for physicians (p = 0.0006) and significantly lower for partners and the media (p < 0.0001 for both). Fifty-nine percent of patients’ decisions were influenced by physicians, 28% were influenced by partners, and only 17% were influenced by the media. The model also showed that patients with a family history of BC had significantly higher odds of being influenced by a partner than did those without a family history of BC (p = 0.015). (4) Conclusions: Compared to self-determination, physicians had a greater influence and partners and the media had a lower influence on the decision of women with unilateral BC to undergo CPM. Strong family history was significantly associated with a patient’s decision to undergo CPM.

Decreasing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates in average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer

BackgroundContralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is not recommended for average-risk women with breast cancer due to lack of evidence for survival benefit, yet recent studies demonstrate increasing CPM rates. MethodsWe identified patients with breast cancer treated with unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without CPM. Rates of malignancy in CPM specimens and factors in CPM rates were assessed. ResultsFrom 2013 to 2017, 1353 patients had UM and 355 had CPM. Our institution’s occult malignancy detection rate was 5.04%. CPM rates decreased from 31.6% to 17.3% (p < 0.001) over 5 years. Compared to patients receiving UM only, patients receiving CPMs had significantly higher reconstruction rates (p < 0.001), which did not significantly change over time (p = 0.551) and tended to be younger (p < 0.001). ConclusionsPatients having UM have low risk of contralateral malignancy. CPM is associated with younger age and breast reconstruction, suggesting factors to identify for patient and provider education.