Dataset Information

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess which patient and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging factors are associated with the likelihood of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Materials and methods

The American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial was compliant with HIPAA; institutional review board approval was obtained at each site. All patients provided written informed consent. This study was a retrospective review of data from 934 women enrolled in the trial who did not have a known contralateral breast cancer at the time of surgical planning. The authors assessed age, menopausal status, index breast cancer histologic results, contralateral breast histologic results, breast density, family history, race and/or ethnicity, MR imaging Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment, and number of MR imaging lesions for association with CPM by using the Fisher exact test, exact ?(2) test, and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

Eighty-six of the 934 (9.2%) women underwent CPM and were more likely to be younger (mean age, 48 years [range, 27-78 years] vs mean age, 54 years [range, 25-86 years]; P < .0001), be premenopausal (55 of 86 [64%] vs 349 of 845 [41%], P < .0001), have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the index breast (31% [27 of 86] vs 19% [164 of 848], P = .02), have greater breast density (71 of 86 [83%] vs 572 of 848 [68%], P = .004), and have a family history of breast cancer (44 of 86 [30%] vs 150 of 488 [18%], P = .01) than those who did not undergo CPM. Distributions of race and/or ethnicity, contralateral lesion pathologic results, and number of MR imaging lesions were similar in both groups. With multivariate modeling, younger age, greater breast density, DCIS index cancer, and family history remained significant, whereas menopausal status did not. Positive MR imaging assessments were not significantly more frequent in the CPM group than in the group of women who did not undergo CPM (14 of 86 [16.3%] vs 113 of 848 [13.3%], P = .43).

Conclusion

In patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent breast MR imaging at which a contralateral breast cancer was not identified, patient factors and not breast MR imaging BI-RADS scores were chief determinants in decisions regarding CPM. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Rahbar H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4263267 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Rahbar Habib H Hanna Lucy G LG Gatsonis Constantine C Mahoney Mary C MC Schnall Mitchell D MD DeMartini Wendy B WB Lehman Constance D CD

Radiology 20140616 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess which patient and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging factors are associated with the likelihood of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial was compliant with HIPAA; institutional review board approval was obtained at each site. All patients provided written informed consent. This study was a retrospective review of data from 934 wome ...[more]

PMID: 24937691

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be unnecessary from an oncologic perspective; therefore, the debate persists about the value of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. Given finite health care resources, this study aims to evaluate the cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. METHODS:Women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing either unilateral mastectomy or unilateral mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were selected from the Truven MarketScan databases between 2009 and 2013. Demographic and treatment data were recorded, and over an 18-month follow-up period, the treatment cost was tallied. A log-transformed linear model was used to compare cost between the groups. RESULTS:A total of 2343 women were identified who met our inclusion criteria, with 1295 undergoing unilateral mastectomy and 1048 undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Complication rates within 18 months were similar for women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (39 percent versus 42 percent; p = 0.17). Management with unilateral mastectomy with reconstruction required an adjusted cumulative mean cost of $33,557. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction was an additional $11,872 in expenditure (p < 0.001). The cost of initial procedures (mean difference, $6467) and secondary procedures (mean difference, $2455) were the greatest contributors to cost. CONCLUSIONS:In women with unilateral breast cancer, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction is more costly. The increased monetary cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be offset by improved quality of life. However, this financial reality is an important consideration when ongoing efforts toward reimbursement reform may not pay for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy if outcomes data are not presented to justify this procedure.

Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceRates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community.ObjectiveTo quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it.Design, setting, and participantsIn this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients.Main outcomes and measuresWe conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.ResultsA total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70% response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28% had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16% received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34% for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4% for surgeons who most favored initial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.

Project description:Importance:Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use is increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer, but little is known about treatment decision making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations. Objective:To evaluate patient motivations, knowledge, and decisions, as well as the impact of surgeon recommendations, in a large, diverse sample of patients who underwent recent treatment for breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:A survey was sent to 3631 women with newly diagnosed, unilateral stage 0, I, or II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014. Women were identified through the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries of Los Angeles County and Georgia. Data on surgical decisions, motivations for those decisions, and knowledge were included in the analysis. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression of the data were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) CPM vs all other treatments combined, (2) CPM vs unilateral mastectomy (UM), and (3) CPM vs breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Associations between CPM receipt and surgeon recommendations were also evaluated. All statistical models and summary estimates were weighted to be representative of the target population. Main Outcomes and Measures:Receipt of CPM was the primary dependent variable for analysis and was measured by a woman's self-report of her treatment. Results:Of the 3631 women selected to receive the survey, 2578 (71.0%) responded and 2402 of these respondents who did not have bilateral disease and for whom surgery type was known constituted the final analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 61.8 (12) years at the time of the survey. Overall, 1301 (43.9%) patients considered CPM (601 [24.8%] considered it very strongly or strongly); only 395 (38.1%) of them knew that CPM does not improve survival for all women with breast cancer. Ultimately, 1466 women (61.6%) received BCS, 508 (21.2%) underwent UM, and 428 (17.3%) received CPM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CPM included younger age (per 5-year increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77), white race (black vs white: OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74), higher educational level (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.20-2.40), family history (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.22-2.17), and private insurance (Medicaid vs private insurance: OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79). Among 1569 patients (65.5%) without high genetic risk or an identified mutation, 598 (39.3%) reported a surgeon recommendation against CPM, of whom only 12 (1.9%) underwent CPM, but among the 746 (46.8%) of these women who received no recommendation for or against CPM from a surgeon, 148 (19.0%) underwent CPM. Conclusions and Relevance:Many patients consider CPM, but knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is low when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. More effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.

Dataset Information

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets