Literature DB >> 10493622

Issues of regret in women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomies.

L L Montgomery1, K N Tran, M C Heelan, K J Van Zee, M J Massie, D K Payne, P I Borgen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of carcinoma of one breast have an estimated risk of 0.5% to 0.75% per year of developing a contralateral breast cancer. This risk prompts many women to consider contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) as a preventive measure. Virtually nothing is known about patient acceptance following CPM. We have developed a National Prophylactic Mastectomy Registry comprised of a volunteer population of 817 women from 43 states who have undergone prophylactic (unilateral or bilateral) mastectomy.
METHODS: Of the 346 women with CPM who responded to national notices, 296 women returned detailed questionnaires. The information obtained included patient demographics, family history, reproductive history, ipsilateral breast cancer staging and treatment, as well as issues involving the CPM.
RESULTS: At median follow-up of 4.9 years, the respondents were primarily married (79%), white (97%) women who had some level of college education or above (81%). These women cited the following reasons for choosing CPM: (1) physician advice regarding the high risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (30%); (2) fear of developing more breast cancer (14%); (3) desire for cosmetic symmetry (10%); (4) family history (7%); (5) fibrocystic breast disease (4%); (6) a combination of all of these reasons (32%); (7) other (2%); and (8) unknown (1%). Eighteen of the 296 women (6%) expressed regrets regarding their decision to undergo CPM. Unlike women with bilateral prophylactic mastectomies, regrets tended to be less common in the women with whom the discussion of CPM had been initiated by their physician (5%) than in the women who had initiated the discussion themselves (8%) (P = ns). Family history and stage of index lesion had no impact on regret status. The reasons for regret included: (1) poor cosmetic result, either of the CPM or of the reconstruction (39%); (2) diminished sense of sexuality (22%); (3) lack of education regarding alternative surveillance methods or CPM efficacy (22%); and (4) other reasons (17%).
CONCLUSIONS: To minimize the risk of regrets in women contemplating CPM, it is imperative that these women be counseled regarding an estimation of contralateral breast cancer risk, the alternatives to CPM, and the efficacy of CPM. In addition, these women should have realistic expectations of the cosmetic outcomes of surgery and understand the potential impact on their body image.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10493622     DOI: 10.1007/s10434-999-0542-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  37 in total

Review 1.  United States trends in the surgical treatment of primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Todd M Tuttle; Natasha M Rueth; Andrea Abbott; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  The importance and complexity of regret in the measurement of 'good' decisions: a systematic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments.

Authors:  Natalie Joseph-Williams; Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Factors affecting the decision of breast cancer patients to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Authors:  Min Yi; Kelly K Hunt; Banu K Arun; Isabelle Bedrosian; Angelica Gutierrez Barrera; Kim-Anh Do; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kaylene Ready; Jennifer Litton; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2010-07-20

4.  Post-treatment regret among young breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Joan R Bloom
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 5.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola Motunaryo Fayanju; Carolyn R T Stoll; Susan Fowler; Graham A Colditz; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 6.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer: what to discuss with patients.

Authors:  Giacomo Montagna; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 4.512

7.  Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in patients with unilateral breast cancer undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Authors:  Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Lavinia P Middleton; Banu K Arun; Isabelle Bedrosian; Gildy V Babiera; Rosa F Hwang; Henry M Kuerer; Wei Yang; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Shoshana M Rosenberg; Michaela S Tracy; Meghan E Meyer; Karen Sepucha; Shari Gelber; Judi Hirshfield-Bartek; Susan Troyan; Monica Morrow; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

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

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mary C Mahoney; Mitchell D Schnall; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Exploring reasons for overuse of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in Canada.

Authors:  J E Squires; S N Simard; S Asad; D Stacey; I D Graham; M Coughlin; M Clemons; J M Grimshaw; J Zhang; J M Caudrelier; A Arnaout
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.