OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is often considered, but variably chosen by women at high inherited risk of breast cancer; few data exist on patient tolerance of intensive breast screening as an alternative to PM. We performed an evaluation of high-risk women's tolerance of a breast screening protocol using clinical breast examination, mammography, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ductal lavage (DL), and of change in attitudes toward PM after screening. DESIGN: A questionnaire assessing tolerance of screening procedures and change in opinion towards PM was designed and administered to 43 study participants, after a median follow-up of 13 months. Responses were evaluated according to patient characteristics, including type of study-prompted interventions, BRCA mutation status, and prior history of cancer, via univariate analysis. RESULTS: Most patients [85.3% (68.9-95.1%)] were more opposed or unchanged in their attitudes towards PM after study participation, with only 14.7% (5.0-31.1%) less opposed (P = 0.017) despite a short-interval follow-up MRI rate of 71.7% and a biopsy rate of 37%. Lower rates of maximal discomfort were reported with mammogram [2.8% (0-14.5%)] and MRI [5.6% (0-18.7%)] than with DL [28.6% (14.6-46.3%)], with P = 0.035. CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk women tolerated intensive breast screening well; they were not more inclined towards PM after participating. Future studies should prospectively evaluate larger numbers of high-risk women via multivariate analysis, to determine characteristics associated with preference for breast screening vs. PM.
OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is often considered, but variably chosen by women at high inherited risk of breast cancer; few data exist on patient tolerance of intensive breast screening as an alternative to PM. We performed an evaluation of high-risk women's tolerance of a breast screening protocol using clinical breast examination, mammography, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ductal lavage (DL), and of change in attitudes toward PM after screening. DESIGN: A questionnaire assessing tolerance of screening procedures and change in opinion towards PM was designed and administered to 43 study participants, after a median follow-up of 13 months. Responses were evaluated according to patient characteristics, including type of study-prompted interventions, BRCA mutation status, and prior history of cancer, via univariate analysis. RESULTS: Most patients [85.3% (68.9-95.1%)] were more opposed or unchanged in their attitudes towards PM after study participation, with only 14.7% (5.0-31.1%) less opposed (P = 0.017) despite a short-interval follow-up MRI rate of 71.7% and a biopsy rate of 37%. Lower rates of maximal discomfort were reported with mammogram [2.8% (0-14.5%)] and MRI [5.6% (0-18.7%)] than with DL [28.6% (14.6-46.3%)], with P = 0.035. CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk women tolerated intensive breast screening well; they were not more inclined towards PM after participating. Future studies should prospectively evaluate larger numbers of high-risk women via multivariate analysis, to determine characteristics associated with preference for breast screening vs. PM.
Authors: A T Agoston; B L Daniel; R J Herfkens; D M Ikeda; R L Birdwell; S G Heiss; A M Sawyer-Glover Journal: Radiographics Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Iris van Oostrom; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Litanja N Lodder; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Arthur R van Gool; Caroline Seynaeve; Conny A van der Meer; Jan G M Klijn; Bert N van Geel; Curt W Burger; Juriy W Wladimiroff; Aad Tibben Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kelly Metcalfe; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Ivo Olivotto; Ellen Warner; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrea Eisen; Barbara Weber; Jane McLennan; Ping Sun; William D Foulkes; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jennifer K Litton; Shannon N Westin; Kaylene Ready; Charlotte C Sun; Susan K Peterson; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Diane C Bodurka; Karen H Lu; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer T Loud; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Kathryn Nichols; June Peters; Ruthann Giusti; Mark H Greene Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 2.809