Literature DB >> 24937691

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Habib Rahbar1, Lucy G Hanna, Constantine Gatsonis, Mary C Mahoney, Mitchell D Schnall, Wendy B DeMartini, Constance D Lehman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess which patient and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging factors are associated with the likelihood of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial was compliant with HIPAA; institutional review board approval was obtained at each site. All patients provided written informed consent. This study was a retrospective review of data from 934 women enrolled in the trial who did not have a known contralateral breast cancer at the time of surgical planning. The authors assessed age, menopausal status, index breast cancer histologic results, contralateral breast histologic results, breast density, family history, race and/or ethnicity, MR imaging Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment, and number of MR imaging lesions for association with CPM by using the Fisher exact test, exact χ(2) test, and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Eighty-six of the 934 (9.2%) women underwent CPM and were more likely to be younger (mean age, 48 years [range, 27-78 years] vs mean age, 54 years [range, 25-86 years]; P < .0001), be premenopausal (55 of 86 [64%] vs 349 of 845 [41%], P < .0001), have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the index breast (31% [27 of 86] vs 19% [164 of 848], P = .02), have greater breast density (71 of 86 [83%] vs 572 of 848 [68%], P = .004), and have a family history of breast cancer (44 of 86 [30%] vs 150 of 488 [18%], P = .01) than those who did not undergo CPM. Distributions of race and/or ethnicity, contralateral lesion pathologic results, and number of MR imaging lesions were similar in both groups. With multivariate modeling, younger age, greater breast density, DCIS index cancer, and family history remained significant, whereas menopausal status did not. Positive MR imaging assessments were not significantly more frequent in the CPM group than in the group of women who did not undergo CPM (14 of 86 [16.3%] vs 113 of 848 [13.3%], P = .43).
CONCLUSION: In patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent breast MR imaging at which a contralateral breast cancer was not identified, patient factors and not breast MR imaging BI-RADS scores were chief determinants in decisions regarding CPM. Online supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24937691      PMCID: PMC4263267          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  31 in total

1.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: mind the genetics.

Authors:  Evangelos Briasoulis; Dimitrios H Roukos
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Issues of regret in women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomies.

Authors:  L L Montgomery; K N Tran; M C Heelan; K J Van Zee; M J Massie; D K Payne; P I Borgen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Clinical and histological predictors of contralateral breast cancer.

Authors:  J Kollias; I O Ellis; C W Elston; R W Blamey
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006.

Authors:  Hazel B Nichols; Amy Berrington de González; James V Lacey; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment.

Authors:  Todd M Tuttle; Elizabeth B Habermann; Erin H Grund; Todd J Morris; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Contralateral breast cancer: clinical characteristics and impact on prognosis.

Authors:  E A Healey; E F Cook; E J Orav; S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; J R Harris
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Sarah J Lord; Ruth M Warren; J Michael Dixon; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Evaluating the impact of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of newly diagnosed breast cancers.

Authors:  Karl Y Bilimoria; Angela Cambic; Nora M Hansen; Kevin P Bethke
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2007-05

Review 10.  Standard for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS).

Authors:  Monica Morrow; Eric A Strom; Lawrence W Bassett; D David Dershaw; Barbara Fowble; J a y R Harris; Frances O'Malley; Stuart J Schnitt; S Eva Singletary; David P Winchester
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 508.702

View more
  4 in total

1.  Relationship between preoperative breast MRI and surgical treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Julie E Weiss; Martha E Goodrich; Weiwei Zhu; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Elissa Ozanne; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Karen J Wernli; Sally D Herschorn; Elise Hotaling; Cristina O'Donoghue; Rebecca Hubbard
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-11-11       Impact factor: 3.454

2.  MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer: 2-Year Follow-up.

Authors:  Nanette D Debruhl; Su-Ju Lee; Mary C Mahoney; Lucy Hanna; Catherine Tuite; Constantine A Gatsonis; Constance Lehman
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2019-11-08

Review 3.  Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: A Review.

Authors:  Soo-Yeon Kim; Nariya Cho
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 2.922

4.  The value of breast MRI in high-risk patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer to exclude invasive disease in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Is there a role to choose wisely patients for sentinel node biopsy?

Authors:  Vivianne Freitas; Pavel Crystal; Supriya R Kulkarni; Sandeep Ghai; Karina Bukhanov; Jaime Escallon; Anabel M Scaranelo
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 4.452

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.