1
|
Singh P, Agnese D, Amin M, Barrio AV, Botty Van den Bruele A, Burke E, Danforth DN, Dirbas FM, Eladoumikdachi F, Kantor O, Kumar S, Lee MC, Matsen C, Nguyen TT, Ozmen T, Park KU, Plichta JK, Reyna C, Showalter SL, Styblo T, Tranakas N, Weiss A, Laronga C, Boughey J. Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Contralateral Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:2212-2223. [PMID: 38261126 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-14893-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
Rates of contralateral mastectomy (CM) among patients with unilateral breast cancer have been increasing in the United States. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, risks, and benefits of CM since the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and then conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. We reviewed the articles and made recommendations based on group consensus. Patients consider CM for many reasons, including concerns regarding the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), desire for improved cosmesis and symmetry, and preferences to avoid ongoing screening, whereas surgeons primarily consider CBC risk when making a recommendation for CM. For patients with a high risk of CBC, CM reduces the risk of new breast cancer, however it is not known to convey an overall survival benefit. Studies evaluating patient satisfaction with CM and reconstruction have yielded mixed results. Imaging with mammography within 12 months before CM is recommended, but routine preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging is not; there is also no evidence to support routine postmastectomy imaging surveillance. Because the likelihood of identifying an occult malignancy during CM is low, routine sentinel lymph node surgery is not recommended. Data on the rates of postoperative complications are conflicting, and such complications may not be directly related to CM. Adjuvant therapy delays due to complications have not been reported. Surgeons can reduce CM rates by encouraging shared decision making and informed discussions incorporating patient preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Puneet Singh
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | | | | | - Andrea V Barrio
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA
| | | | - Erin Burke
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Olga Kantor
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shicha Kumar
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | - Tolga Ozmen
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ko Un Park
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Anna Weiss
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Filip CI, Cătană A, Kutasi E, Roman SA, Militaru MS, Risteiu GA, Dindelengan GC. Breast Cancer Screening and Prophylactic Mastectomy for High-Risk Women in Romania. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2024; 60:570. [PMID: 38674216 PMCID: PMC11052261 DOI: 10.3390/medicina60040570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2024] [Revised: 03/10/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024]
Abstract
Breast cancer remains a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality within oncology. Risk factors, encompassing genetic and environmental influences, significantly contribute to its prevalence. While germline mutations, notably within the BRCA genes, are commonly associated with heightened breast cancer risk, a spectrum of other variants exists among affected individuals. Diagnosis relies on imaging techniques, biopsies, biomarkers, and genetic testing, facilitating personalised risk assessment through specific scoring systems. Breast cancer screening programs employing mammography and other imaging modalities play a crucial role in early detection and management, leading to improved outcomes for affected individuals. Regular screening enables the identification of suspicious lesions or abnormalities at earlier stages, facilitating timely intervention and potentially reducing mortality rates associated with breast cancer. Genetic mutations guide screening protocols, prophylactic interventions, treatment modalities, and patient prognosis. Prophylactic measures encompass a range of interventions, including chemoprevention, hormonal inhibition, oophorectomy, and mastectomy. Despite their efficacy in mitigating breast cancer incidence, these interventions carry potential side effects and psychological implications, necessitating comprehensive counselling tailored to individual cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudiu Ioan Filip
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burn Unit, Emergency District Hospital, 400535 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (C.I.F.); (G.C.D.)
- First Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Andreea Cătană
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (A.C.); (E.K.); (S.A.R.); (G.A.R.)
- Department of Oncogeneticcs, Institute of Oncology, “Prof. Dr. I. Chiricuță”, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Regional Laboratory Cluj-Napoca, Department of Medical Genetics, Regina Maria Health Network, 400363 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Eniko Kutasi
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (A.C.); (E.K.); (S.A.R.); (G.A.R.)
| | - Sara Alexia Roman
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (A.C.); (E.K.); (S.A.R.); (G.A.R.)
| | - Mariela Sanda Militaru
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (A.C.); (E.K.); (S.A.R.); (G.A.R.)
- Regional Laboratory Cluj-Napoca, Department of Medical Genetics, Regina Maria Health Network, 400363 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Giulia Andreea Risteiu
- Department of Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (A.C.); (E.K.); (S.A.R.); (G.A.R.)
| | - George Călin Dindelengan
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Burn Unit, Emergency District Hospital, 400535 Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (C.I.F.); (G.C.D.)
- First Surgical Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schmidt MK, Kelly JE, Brédart A, Cameron DA, de Boniface J, Easton DF, Offersen BV, Poulakaki F, Rubio IT, Sardanelli F, Schmutzler R, Spanic T, Weigelt B, Rutgers EJT. EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Eur J Cancer 2023; 181:79-91. [PMID: 36641897 PMCID: PMC10326619 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Anne Brédart
- Institut Curie, Paris, France; Psychology Institute, Psychopathology and Health Process Laboratory UR4057, Paris City University, Paris, France
| | - David A Cameron
- Edinburgh University Cancer Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Breast Unit, Capio St. Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital - Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - Fiorita Poulakaki
- Breast Surgery Department, Athens Medical Center, Athens, Greece; Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy
| | - Isabel T Rubio
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Tanja Spanic
- Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy; Europa Donna Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Britta Weigelt
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dettwyler SA, Thull DL, McAuliffe PF, Steiman JG, Johnson RR, Diego EJ, Mai PL. Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 194:393-401. [PMID: 35596825 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06619-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic. METHODS Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated. RESULTS Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shenin A Dettwyler
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Cancer Genetics Program), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Currently at NYU Langone Health (The Pancreatic Cancer Center), New York, NY, USA.
| | - Darcy L Thull
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Cancer Genetics Program), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Jennifer G Steiman
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Ronald R Johnson
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Emilia J Diego
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Phuong L Mai
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Center for Clinical Genetics and Genomics), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pender K, Covington B. How Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Does the Body, or Why Epistemology Alone Cannot Explain this Controversial Breast Cancer Treatment. THE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL HUMANITIES 2022; 43:141-158. [PMID: 32043198 DOI: 10.1007/s10912-020-09614-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Pender
- Virginia Tech, 232 Shanks Hall (0112), 181 Turner St. NW, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA.
| | - Brooke Covington
- Virginia Tech, 232 Shanks Hall (0112), 181 Turner St. NW, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Meattini I, Becherini C, Bernini M, Bonzano E, Criscitiello C, De Rose F, De Santis MC, Fontana A, Franco P, Gentilini OD, Livi L, Meduri B, Parisi S, Pasinetti N, Prisco A, Rocco N. Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy: An Italian expert Delphi consensus statements and critical review. Cancer Treat Rev 2021; 99:102236. [PMID: 34126314 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102236] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2021] [Revised: 05/21/2021] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation therapy (RT) or mastectomy have shown comparable oncological outcomes in early-stage breast cancer and are considered standard of care treatments. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) targeted to both the chest wall and regional lymph nodes is recommended in high-risk patients. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS) represents a significant recent improvement in breast surgery. Nevertheless, it represents a challenge for radiation oncologists as it triggers different decision-making strategies related to treatment volume definition and target delineation. Hence, the choice of the best combination and timing when offering RT to breast cancer patients who underwent or are planned to undergo reconstruction procedures should be carefully evaluated and based on individual considerations. We present an Italian expert Delphi Consensus statements and critical review, led by a core group of all the professional profiles involved in the management of breast cancer patients undergoing reconstructive procedures and RT. The report was structured as to consider the main recommendations on breast reconstruction and RT and analyse the current open issues deserving investigation and consensus. We used a three key-phases and a Delphi process. The final expert panel of 40 colleagues selected key topics as identified by the core group of the project. A final consensus on 26 key statements on RT and breast reconstruction after three rounds of the Delphi voting process and harmonisation was reached. An accompanying critical review of available literature was summarized. A clear communication and cooperation between surgeon and radiation oncologist is of paramount relevance both in the setting of breast reconstruction following mastectomy when PMRT is planned and when extensive glandular rearrangements as OBCS is performed. A shared-decision making, relying on outcome-based and patient-centred considerations, is essential, while waiting for higher level-of-evidence data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Icro Meattini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy.
| | - Carlotta Becherini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy
| | - Marco Bernini
- Breast Surgery Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Elisabetta Bonzano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS San Matteo Polyclinic Foundation & PhD School in Experimental Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | - Carmen Criscitiello
- Department of Oncology and Haematology (DIPO), University of Milan & Division of Early Drug Development for Innovative Therapy, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Fiorenza De Rose
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | - Maria Carmen De Santis
- Radiation Oncology Unit 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | - Antonella Fontana
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Ospedale Santa Maria Goretti, Latina, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy
| | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont & Radiation Oncology Unit, AOU "Maggiore della Carità", Novara, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | | | - Lorenzo Livi
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy
| | - Bruno Meduri
- Radiation Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | - Silvana Parisi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical, Dental Science and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy
| | - Nadia Pasinetti
- Radiation Oncology Service, ASST Valcamonica, Esine, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy; Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Group (COBCG), Italy
| | - Agnese Prisco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Udine, ASUFC, Udine, Italy; Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) Breast Cancer Group, Italy
| | - Nicola Rocco
- Group for Reconstructive and Therapeutic Advancements (G.RE.T.A.), Milan, Naples, Catania, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Scheepens JCC, Veer LV', Esserman L, Belkora J, Mukhtar RA. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability. Breast 2021; 56:61-69. [PMID: 33621798 PMCID: PMC7907889 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 02/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Josien C C Scheepens
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Laboratory Medicine, 2340 Sutter St., Box 0808, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA
| | - Laura van 't Veer
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Laboratory Medicine, 2340 Sutter St., Box 0808, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA
| | - Laura Esserman
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Surgery, 1825 4th Street, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1710, USA
| | - Jeff Belkora
- University of California, San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Surgery, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA
| | - Rita A Mukhtar
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Surgery, 1825 4th Street, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|