OBJECTIVE: To examine whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is associated with improved survival, incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and recurrence in patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). BACKGROUND: Despite conflicting data, CPM rates continue to increase. Here we present the first meta-analysis to assess post-CPM outcomes in women with UBC. METHODS: We searched 5 databases and retrieved papers' bibliographies for relevant studies published through March 2012. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on the basis of tests of study heterogeneity. We examined potential confounding via stratification and meta-regression. We report pooled relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at 2-tailed P < 0.05 significance. RESULTS: Of 93 studies reviewed, 14 were included in meta-analyses. Compared with nonrecipients, CPM recipients had higher rates of overall survival [OS; RR = 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.11)] and lower rates of breast cancer-specific mortality [BCM; RR = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.85)] but saw no absolute reduction in risk of metachronous CBC (MCBC). Among patients with elevated familial/genetic risk (FGR, ie, BRCA carrier status and/or family history of breast cancer), both relative and absolute risks of MCBC were significantly decreased among CPM recipients [RR = 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.09); RD = -24.0% (95% CI: -35.6%, -12.4%)], but there was no improvement in OS or BCM. CONCLUSIONS: CPM is associated with decreased MCBC incidence but not improved survival among patients with elevated FGR. The superior outcomes observed when comparing CPM recipients with nonrecipients in the general population are likely not attributable to a CPM-derived decrease in MCBC incidence. UBC patients without known FGR should not be advised to undergo CPM.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is associated with improved survival, incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and recurrence in patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). BACKGROUND: Despite conflicting data, CPM rates continue to increase. Here we present the first meta-analysis to assess post-CPM outcomes in women with UBC. METHODS: We searched 5 databases and retrieved papers' bibliographies for relevant studies published through March 2012. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on the basis of tests of study heterogeneity. We examined potential confounding via stratification and meta-regression. We report pooled relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at 2-tailed P < 0.05 significance. RESULTS: Of 93 studies reviewed, 14 were included in meta-analyses. Compared with nonrecipients, CPM recipients had higher rates of overall survival [OS; RR = 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.11)] and lower rates of breast cancer-specific mortality [BCM; RR = 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.85)] but saw no absolute reduction in risk of metachronous CBC (MCBC). Among patients with elevated familial/genetic risk (FGR, ie, BRCA carrier status and/or family history of breast cancer), both relative and absolute risks of MCBC were significantly decreased among CPM recipients [RR = 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.09); RD = -24.0% (95% CI: -35.6%, -12.4%)], but there was no improvement in OS or BCM. CONCLUSIONS:CPM is associated with decreased MCBC incidence but not improved survival among patients with elevated FGR. The superior outcomes observed when comparing CPM recipients with nonrecipients in the general population are likely not attributable to a CPM-derived decrease in MCBC incidence. UBC patients without known FGR should not be advised to undergo CPM.
Authors: Ian Smith; Marion Procter; Richard D Gelber; Sébastien Guillaume; Andrea Feyereislova; Mitch Dowsett; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Gabriella Mariani; Jose Baselga; Manfred Kaufmann; David Cameron; Richard Bell; Jonas Bergh; Robert Coleman; Andrew Wardley; Nadia Harbeck; Roberto I Lopez; Peter Mallmann; Karen Gelmon; Nicholas Wilcken; Erik Wist; Pedro Sánchez Rovira; Martine J Piccart-Gebhart Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-06 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Judy C Boughey; Nazanin Khakpour; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Henry M Kuerer; Sonja E Singletary; Gildy V Babiera; Banu Arun; Kelly K Hunt; Isabelle Bedrosian Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kenneth P Tercyak; Beth N Peshkin; Barbara M Brogan; Tiffani DeMarco; Marie F Pennanen; Shawna C Willey; Colette M Magnant; Sarah Rogers; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paula J C Bresser; Caroline Seynaeve; Arthur R Van Gool; Cecile T Brekelmans; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Albert N van Geel; Marian B Menke-Pluijmers; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Jan G M Klijn; Aad Tibben Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.730
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
Authors: Rachel A Greenup; Christel Rushing; Laura Fish; Brittany M Campbell; Lisa Tolnitch; Terry Hyslop; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Evan R Myers; E Shelley Hwang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Margaret E Smith; C Ann Vitous; Tasha M Hughes; Sarah P Shubeck; Reshma Jagsi; Lesly A Dossett Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-03-02 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: J E Squires; S N Simard; S Asad; D Stacey; I D Graham; M Coughlin; M Clemons; J M Grimshaw; J Zhang; J M Caudrelier; A Arnaout Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.677