BACKGROUND: An increasing trend in the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for the treatment of unilateral breast cancer has been observed nationally. The purpose of this study was to confirm this trend and to identify differences between the groups that chose unilateral mastectomy alone or with CPM. METHODS: A prospectively maintained breast cancer database was retrospectively reviewed. Age, histologic grade, stage, education, family history, tumor receptor status, and use of immediate reconstruction were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed by Fisher's exact test, chi(2) test, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2007, a total of 1639 women who selected UM and 201 who had UM and CPM for unilateral breast cancer were identified. An increasing trend in CPM was observed (6.5% in 1999 vs. 16.1% in 2007). The CPM group was significantly younger (mean age 47.8 vs. 55.1 years, P < .001). No difference in histologic grade was noted between the two groups; however, an increasing trend toward CPM was observed with lower-stage disease. Women with a higher educational level were more likely to have CPM (P < .001). Women with a family history of cancer were also more likely to have CPM (57% vs. 41%, P < .001). Use of reconstruction was similar between the groups (6.0% for CPM vs. 6.7% for UM, P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience parallels the national trend of increasing use of CPM in women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. Women who chose to have CPM were younger, more highly educated, and more likely to have a family history of cancer.
BACKGROUND: An increasing trend in the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for the treatment of unilateral breast cancer has been observed nationally. The purpose of this study was to confirm this trend and to identify differences between the groups that chose unilateral mastectomy alone or with CPM. METHODS: A prospectively maintained breast cancer database was retrospectively reviewed. Age, histologic grade, stage, education, family history, tumor receptor status, and use of immediate reconstruction were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed by Fisher's exact test, chi(2) test, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2007, a total of 1639 women who selected UM and 201 who had UM and CPM for unilateral breast cancer were identified. An increasing trend in CPM was observed (6.5% in 1999 vs. 16.1% in 2007). The CPM group was significantly younger (mean age 47.8 vs. 55.1 years, P < .001). No difference in histologic grade was noted between the two groups; however, an increasing trend toward CPM was observed with lower-stage disease. Women with a higher educational level were more likely to have CPM (P < .001). Women with a family history of cancer were also more likely to have CPM (57% vs. 41%, P < .001). Use of reconstruction was similar between the groups (6.0% for CPM vs. 6.7% for UM, P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience parallels the national trend of increasing use of CPM in women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. Women who chose to have CPM were younger, more highly educated, and more likely to have a family history of cancer.
Authors: Lauren J Taylor; Jennifer Steiman; Jessica R Schumacher; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg; Heather B Neuman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Karen Sepucha; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Meghan E Meyer; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Virginia F Borges; Mehra Golshan; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A Bouchard-Fortier; N N Baxter; R Sutradhar; K Fernandes; X Camacho; P Graham; M L Quan Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
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
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Scott B Cantor; Melissa A Crosby; Wenli Dong; Yu Shen; Isabelle Bedrosian; Susan K Peterson; Patricia A Parker; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344