BACKGROUND: Determination of BRCA1 and 2 mutation carrier status is important. Although BRCA carriers are offered bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy, most who test negative decline. Some women choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis despite testing negative. METHODS: A total of 110 women with breast cancer received genetic testing before surgical treatment. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, and magnetic resonance imaging use were recorded. RESULTS: Results revealed BRCA1/2 mutation in 33%, variant of unknown significance in 6%, and no mutation in 61% of women. In BRCA-negative women, 37% chose CPM. Marital status was significant for CPM (P = .03). Race, age, stage of presentation, and biomarker status were not associated with choice of CPM. Ninety-six percent of CPM recipients underwent breast reconstruction. Magnetic resonance imaging use did not affect CPM rates (P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of CPM have been observed. In our study married women were more likely to choose CPM. We recommend genetic genotyping before surgery. These findings warrant further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Determination of BRCA1 and 2 mutation carrier status is important. Although BRCA carriers are offered bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy, most who test negative decline. Some women choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis despite testing negative. METHODS: A total of 110 women with breast cancer received genetic testing before surgical treatment. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, and magnetic resonance imaging use were recorded. RESULTS: Results revealed BRCA1/2 mutation in 33%, variant of unknown significance in 6%, and no mutation in 61% of women. In BRCA-negative women, 37% chose CPM. Marital status was significant for CPM (P = .03). Race, age, stage of presentation, and biomarker status were not associated with choice of CPM. Ninety-six percent of CPM recipients underwent breast reconstruction. Magnetic resonance imaging use did not affect CPM rates (P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of CPM have been observed. In our study married women were more likely to choose CPM. We recommend genetic genotyping before surgery. These findings warrant further investigation.
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Lidia Schapira; Steven Come; Virginia F Borges; Bryce Larsen; Judy E Garber; Ann H Partridge Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux C Genoff; Melissa Salerno; Kimberly Amoroso; Sherry R Boyar; Margaret Sheehan; Megan Harlan Fleischut; Beth Siegel; Angela G Arnold; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Nisreen Elsayegh; Henry M Kuerer; Heather Lin; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Michelle Jackson; Kimberly I Muse; Jennifer K Litton; Constance Albarracin; Aimaz Afrough; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mara Tynan; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Shawna Willey; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian Hooker; Suzanne C O'Neill; Lina Jandorf; Scott P Kelly; Jessica Heinzmann; Sarah Kelleher; Elizabeth Poggi; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Theresa H M Keegan; David O Nelson; Christina A Clarke; Scarlett L Gomez Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: M R Wevers; M K Schmidt; E G Engelhardt; S Verhoef; M J Hooning; M Kriege; C Seynaeve; M Collée; C J van Asperen; R A E M Tollenaar; L B Koppert; A J Witkamp; E J T Rutgers; N K Aaronson; M A Rookus; M G E M Ausems Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Nisreen Elsayegh; Jessica Profato; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Heather Lin; Henry M Kuerer; Can Ardic; Jennifer K Litton; Debasish Tripathy; Banu K Arun Journal: J Cancer Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 4.207