BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in addition to therapeutic mastectomy (TM) is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 385 women with stage I or II breast cancer and a family history of breast cancer who underwent TM and CPM between 1971 and 1993 were evaluated and compared to 385 patients matched on age at diagnosis, tumor stage, nodal status, and year of diagnosis who underwent TM-only. Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) events and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 2 CBCs (0.5%) developed in the CPM cohort and 31 (8.1%) in the TM-only cohort, representing a 95% decreased risk of CBC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.01-0.22, P < 0.0001). One hundred twenty-eight women in the CPM group and 162 women in the TM-only group have died, resulting in 10-year overall survival estimates of 83 and 74%, respectively (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P = 0.001). This difference in overall survival persisted in multivariate analysis (HR 0.77, P = 0.03). Disease-free survival (DFS) was better in the CPM cohort than the TM-only group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.82, P = 0.0002) and remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.67, P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, CPM was associated with decreased CBC event and improved overall survival and disease free survival.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in addition to therapeutic mastectomy (TM) is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 385 women with stage I or II breast cancer and a family history of breast cancer who underwent TM and CPM between 1971 and 1993 were evaluated and compared to 385 patients matched on age at diagnosis, tumor stage, nodal status, and year of diagnosis who underwent TM-only. Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) events and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 2 CBCs (0.5%) developed in the CPM cohort and 31 (8.1%) in the TM-only cohort, representing a 95% decreased risk of CBC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.01-0.22, P < 0.0001). One hundred twenty-eight women in the CPM group and 162 women in the TM-only group have died, resulting in 10-year overall survival estimates of 83 and 74%, respectively (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86, P = 0.001). This difference in overall survival persisted in multivariate analysis (HR 0.77, P = 0.03). Disease-free survival (DFS) was better in the CPM cohort than the TM-only group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.82, P = 0.0002) and remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.67, P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, CPM was associated with decreased CBC event and improved overall survival and disease free survival.
Authors: C T M Brekelmans; C Seynaeve; M Menke-Pluymers; H T Brüggenwirth; M M A Tilanus-Linthorst; C C M Bartels; M Kriege; A N van Geel; C M G Crepin; J C Blom; H Meijers-Heijboer; J G M Klijn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Susan Boolbol; Amy Degnim; Henry Kuerer; A Marilyn Leitch; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marlene H Frost; Jeffrey M Slezak; Nho V Tran; Constance I Williams; Joanne L Johnson; John E Woods; Paul M Petty; John H Donohue; Clive S Grant; Jeff A Sloan; Thomas A Sellers; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kristi D Graves; Beth N Peshkin; Chanita H Halbert; Tiffani A DeMarco; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karin Leunen; Maria Drijkoningen; Patrick Neven; Maria-Rose Christiaens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Eric Legius; Frédéric Amant; Patrick Berteloot; Ignace Vergote Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: C T M Brekelmans; M M A Tilanus-Linthorst; C Seynaeve; A vd Ouweland; M B E Menke-Pluymers; C C M Bartels; M Kriege; A N van Geel; C W Burger; A M M Eggermont; H Meijers-Heijboer; J G M Klijn Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Marlene H Frost; Tanya L Hoskin; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Joanne L Johnson; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rachel C Hooper; Jessica Hsu; Anthony Duncan; Jessica M Bensenhaver; Lisa A Newman; Kelly M Kidwell; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.730
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