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:PurposeTo compare whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional imaging for detection of distant metastases in pediatric patients with common malignant tumors.Materials and methodsThis institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, multicenter prospective cohort study included 188 patients (109 male, 79 female; mean age, 10.2 years; range, < 1 to 21 years) with newly diagnosed lymphoma, neuroblastoma, or soft-tissue sarcoma. Informed consent was obtained and all patients underwent noncontrast material-enhanced whole-body MR imaging and standard-practice conventional imaging. All images were reviewed centrally by 10 pairs of readers. An independent panel verified the presence or absence of distant metastases. Detection of metastasis with whole-body MR and conventional imaging was quantified by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The effects of tumor subtype, patient age, and distant skeletal and pulmonary disease on diagnostic accuracy were also analyzed.ResultsOf the 134 eligible patients, 66 (33 positive and 33 negative for metastasis) were selected for image review and analysis. Whole-body MR imaging did not meet the noninferiority criterion for accuracy when compared with conventional imaging for detection of metastasis (difference between average AUCs was -0.03 [95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.04]); however, the average AUC for solid tumors was significantly higher than that for lymphomas (P = .006). More skeletal metastases were detected by using whole-body MR imaging than by using conventional imaging (P = .03), but fewer lung metastases were detected (P < .001). Patient age did not affect accuracy.ConclusionThe noninferior accuracy for diagnosis of distant metastasis in patients with common pediatric tumors was not established for the use of whole-body MR imaging compared with conventional methods. However, improved accuracy was seen with whole-body MR imaging in patients with nonlymphomatous tumors.

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:BackgroundRates 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsThe 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.ConclusionIncreased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM.HighlightsThis 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.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresWe 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceMost 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.

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