Show simple item record

Differences between Breast Conservation‐Eligible Patients and Unilateral Mastectomy Patients in Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomies

dc.contributor.authorSabel, Michael S.
dc.contributor.authorKraft, Casey T.
dc.contributor.authorGriffith, Kent A.
dc.contributor.authorBensenhaver, Jessica M.
dc.contributor.authorNewman, Lisa A.
dc.contributor.authorHawley, Sarah T.
dc.contributor.authorMomoh, Adeyiza O.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-06T20:49:51Z
dc.date.available2018-01-08T19:47:52Zen
dc.date.issued2016-11
dc.identifier.citationSabel, Michael S.; Kraft, Casey T.; Griffith, Kent A.; Bensenhaver, Jessica M.; Newman, Lisa A.; Hawley, Sarah T.; Momoh, Adeyiza O. (2016). "Differences between Breast Conservation‐Eligible Patients and Unilateral Mastectomy Patients in Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomies." The Breast Journal 22(6): 607-615.
dc.identifier.issn1075-122X
dc.identifier.issn1524-4741
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/135041
dc.description.abstractThere has been an increasing use of bilateral mastectomy (BM) for breast cancer. We sought to examine our trends among breast conservation (BCT) candidates and women recommended for unilateral mastectomy (UM). Our prospective breast cancer database was queried for women with a first‐time, unilateral breast cancer. Patient and histologic factors and surgical treatment, including reconstruction, were evaluated. A detailed chart review was performed among patients from two representative time periods as to the reasons the patient underwent mastectomy. We identified 3,892 women between 2000 and 2012 of whom 60% underwent BCT, 1092 (28%) had UM and 12% underwent BM. BM rose from 4% in 2000 to a high of 19% in 2011, increasing around 2002 for women <40. BCT was less likely with decreasing age (p < 0.0001), lobular histology (p < 0.0001), higher stage (p < 0.0001) and decreasing BMI (p < 0.0001). Among mastectomy patients, contralateral mastectomy was associated with decreasing age (p < 0.0001), Caucasian race (p < 0.0001), and lower stage (p = 0.005). Over time, indications for mastectomy decreased while patients deemed BCT‐eligible opting for UM or BM increased dramatically. Increases in the use of BM are in large part among women who were otherwise BCT‐eligible. Factors associated with BM use are different for BCT‐eligible patients and those recommended for UM. A better understanding of the factors driving individual patient choices is needed.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherreconstruction
dc.subject.otherbreast cancer
dc.subject.otherbreast conservation
dc.subject.othercontralateral prophylactic mastectomy
dc.titleDifferences between Breast Conservation‐Eligible Patients and Unilateral Mastectomy Patients in Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomies
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelObstetrics and Gynecology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135041/1/tbj12648_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135041/2/tbj12648.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/tbj.12648
dc.identifier.sourceThe Breast Journal
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOsman F, Saleh F, Jackson TD, et al. Increased postoperative complications in bilateral mastectomy patients compared to unilateral mastectomy: an Analysis of the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3212 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones NB, Wilson J, Kotur L, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: an increasing trend at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 2691 – 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKing TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2158 – 64.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYao K, Winchester DJ, Czechura T, Huo D. Contralteral prophylactic mastectomy and survival: report from the National Cancer Database, 1998‐2002. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 142: 465 – 76.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, et al. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5203 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePesce CE, Leiderbach E, Czechura T, et al. Changing surgical trends in young patients with early stage breast cancer, 2003 to 2010: a report from the national cancer database. JACS 2014; 219: 19 – 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKurian AW, Lichtensztain DY, Keegan TH, et al. Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998‐2011. JAMA 2014; 12: 902 – 14.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSabel MS, Jorns JM, Wu A, Myers J, Newman LA, Breslin TM. Development of an intraoperative pathology consultation service at a free‐standing ambulatory surgical center: clinical and economic impact for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Am J Surg 2012; 204: 66 ‐ 77.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDragun AE, Pan J, Riley EC, et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates: a 14‐year report from a comprenehensive cancer center. Am J Clin Oncol 2013; 36: 375 – 80.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYi M, Hunt KK, Arun BK, et al. Factors affecting the deciion of breast cancer patients to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer Prev Res 2010; 3: 1026 – 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, et al. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patietns with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 2697 – 704.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME, et al. Perceptions, knowledge and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 373 – 81.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 582 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGuth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy‐ a trend made in USA? Eur J Surg Oncol 2012; 38: 296 – 301.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAshfaq A, McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, et al. Impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 2934 – 40.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJagsi R, Jiang J, Momoh AO, et al. Trends and variation in use of breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy in the United States. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 919 – 26.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlack WC, Nease RF, Tosteson AN. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 720 – 31.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRakovitch E, Franssen E, Kim J, et al. A comparison of risk perception and psychological morbidity in women with DCIS and early invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 77: 285 – 93.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbbott A, Rueth N, Pappas‐Varco S, et al. Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer: an oversestimation of risk. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 3129 – 36.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDavies C, Godwin J, Gray RJ, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the effiacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient‐level meta‐analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378: 771 – 84.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, et al. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1564 – 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 582 – 9.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.