Isabelle Bedrosian1, Chung-Yuan Hu, George J Chang. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX , USA. ibedrosian@mdanderson.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increased demand for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the survival benefit of this procedure remains uncertain. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify 107 106 women with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy for treatment between 1998 and 2003 and a subset of 8902 women who also underwent CPM during the same period. Associations between predictor variables and the likelihood of undergoing CPM were evaluated by use of chi(2) analyses. Risk-stratified (estrogen receptor [ER] status, stage, and age) adjusted survival analyses were performed by using Cox regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In a univariate analysis, CPM was associated with improved disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] of death = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 0.69; P < .001). Risk-stratified analysis showed that this association was because of a reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality in women aged 18-49 years with stages I-II ER-negative cancer (HR of death = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.88; P = .004). Five year-adjusted breast cancer survival for this group was improved with CPM vs without (88.5% vs 83.7%, difference = 4.8%). Although rates of contralateral breast cancer among young women with stages I-II disease undergoing CPM were independent of ER status, women with ER-positive tumors in the absence of prophylactic mastectomy also had a lower overall risk for contralateral breast cancer than women with ER-negative tumors (0.46% vs 0.90%, difference = 0.44%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CPM is associated with a small improvement in 5-year breast cancer-specific survival mainly in young women with early-stage ER-negative breast cancer. This effect is related to a higher baseline risk of contralateral breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Despite increased demand for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the survival benefit of this procedure remains uncertain. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify 107 106 women with breast cancer who had undergone mastectomy for treatment between 1998 and 2003 and a subset of 8902 women who also underwent CPM during the same period. Associations between predictor variables and the likelihood of undergoing CPM were evaluated by use of chi(2) analyses. Risk-stratified (estrogen receptor [ER] status, stage, and age) adjusted survival analyses were performed by using Cox regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In a univariate analysis, CPM was associated with improved disease-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] of death = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 0.69; P < .001). Risk-stratified analysis showed that this association was because of a reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality in women aged 18-49 years with stages I-II ER-negative cancer (HR of death = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.88; P = .004). Five year-adjusted breast cancer survival for this group was improved with CPM vs without (88.5% vs 83.7%, difference = 4.8%). Although rates of contralateral breast cancer among young women with stages I-II disease undergoing CPM were independent of ER status, women with ER-positive tumors in the absence of prophylactic mastectomy also had a lower overall risk for contralateral breast cancer than women with ER-negative tumors (0.46% vs 0.90%, difference = 0.44%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: CPM is associated with a small improvement in 5-year breast cancer-specific survival mainly in young women with early-stage ER-negative breast cancer. This effect is related to a higher baseline risk of contralateral breast cancer.
Authors: Thao N Vo; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Min Yi; Thomas A Buchholz; Frederick C Ames; Henry M Kuerer; Isabelle Bedrosian; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: H Meijers-Heijboer; B van Geel; W L van Putten; S C Henzen-Logmans; C Seynaeve; M B Menke-Pluymers; C C Bartels; L C Verhoog; A M van den Ouweland; M F Niermeijer; C T Brekelmans; J G Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R W Carlson; B O Anderson; W Bensinger; C E Cox; N E Davidson; S B Edge; W B Farrar; L J Goldstein; W J Gradishar; A S Lichter; B McCormick; L M Nabell; E C Reed; S M Silver; M L Smith; G Somlo; R Theriault; J H Ward; E P Winer; A Wolff Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sharon H Giordano; Yong-Fang Kuo; Zhigang Duan; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jean Freeman; James S Goodwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John F Forbes; Jack Cuzick; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Jeffrey S Tobias; Michael Baum Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 41.316
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
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Melissa A Crosby; Yu Shen; Dalliah M Black; Gildy Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Jun Ying; Wenli Dong; Scott B Cantor; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Peter Angelos; Isabelle Bedrosian; David M Euhus; Virginia M Herrmann; Steven J Katz; Andrea Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 5.344