Allison W Kurian1, Daphne Y Lichtensztajn2, Theresa H M Keegan3, David O Nelson3, Christina A Clarke3, Scarlett L Gomez3. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California2Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont. 3. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California3Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Bilateral mastectomy is increasingly used to treat unilateral breast cancer. Because it may have medical and psychosocial complications, a better understanding of its use and outcomes is essential to optimizing cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy with radiation, and unilateral mastectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study within the population-based California Cancer Registry; participants were women diagnosed with stages 0-III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 through 2011, with median follow-up of 89.1 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with surgery use (from polytomous logistic regression); overall and breast cancer-specific mortality (from propensity score weighting and Cox proportional hazards analysis). RESULTS: Among 189,734 patients, the rate of bilateral mastectomy increased from 2.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.2%) in 1998 to 12.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.9%) in 2011, an annual increase of 14.3% (95% CI, 13.1%-15.5%); among women younger than 40 years, the rate increased from 3.6% (95% CI, 2.3%-5.0%) in 1998 to 33% (95% CI, 29.8%-36.5%) in 2011. Bilateral mastectomy was more often used by non-Hispanic white women, those with private insurance, and those who received care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center (8.6% [95% CI, 8.1%-9.2%] among NCI cancer center patients vs 6.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.1%] among non-NCI cancer center patients; odds ratio [OR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.22]); in contrast, unilateral mastectomy was more often used by racial/ethnic minorities (Filipina, 52.8% [95% CI, 51.6%-54.0%]; OR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.90-2.11] and Hispanic, 45.6% [95% CI, 45.0%-46.2%]; OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.20] vs non-Hispanic white, 35.2% [95% CI, 34.9%-35.5%]) and those with public/Medicaid insurance (48.4% [95% CI, 47.8%-48.9%]; OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.11] vs private insurance, 36.6% [95% CI, 36.3%-36.8%]). Compared with breast-conserving surgery with radiation (10-year mortality, 16.8% [95% CI, 16.6%-17.1%]), unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.32-1.39]; 10-year mortality, 20.1% [95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%]). There was no significant mortality difference compared with bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.94-1.11]; 10-year mortality, 18.8% [95% CI, 18.6%-19.0%]). Propensity analysis showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of bilateral mastectomy increased significantly throughout California from 1998 through 2011 and was not associated with lower mortality than that achieved with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation. Unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher mortality than were the other 2 surgical options.
IMPORTANCE: Bilateral mastectomy is increasingly used to treat unilateral breast cancer. Because it may have medical and psychosocial complications, a better understanding of its use and outcomes is essential to optimizing cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy with radiation, and unilateral mastectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study within the population-based California Cancer Registry; participants were women diagnosed with stages 0-III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 through 2011, with median follow-up of 89.1 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Factors associated with surgery use (from polytomous logistic regression); overall and breast cancer-specific mortality (from propensity score weighting and Cox proportional hazards analysis). RESULTS: Among 189,734 patients, the rate of bilateral mastectomy increased from 2.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.2%) in 1998 to 12.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.9%) in 2011, an annual increase of 14.3% (95% CI, 13.1%-15.5%); among women younger than 40 years, the rate increased from 3.6% (95% CI, 2.3%-5.0%) in 1998 to 33% (95% CI, 29.8%-36.5%) in 2011. Bilateral mastectomy was more often used by non-Hispanic white women, those with private insurance, and those who received care at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center (8.6% [95% CI, 8.1%-9.2%] among NCI cancer center patients vs 6.0% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.1%] among non-NCI cancer center patients; odds ratio [OR], 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.22]); in contrast, unilateral mastectomy was more often used by racial/ethnic minorities (Filipina, 52.8% [95% CI, 51.6%-54.0%]; OR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.90-2.11] and Hispanic, 45.6% [95% CI, 45.0%-46.2%]; OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.20] vs non-Hispanic white, 35.2% [95% CI, 34.9%-35.5%]) and those with public/Medicaid insurance (48.4% [95% CI, 47.8%-48.9%]; OR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.11] vs private insurance, 36.6% [95% CI, 36.3%-36.8%]). Compared with breast-conserving surgery with radiation (10-year mortality, 16.8% [95% CI, 16.6%-17.1%]), unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.32-1.39]; 10-year mortality, 20.1% [95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%]). There was no significant mortality difference compared with bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.94-1.11]; 10-year mortality, 18.8% [95% CI, 18.6%-19.0%]). Propensity analysis showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of bilateral mastectomy increased significantly throughout California from 1998 through 2011 and was not associated with lower mortality than that achieved with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation. Unilateral mastectomy was associated with higher mortality than were the other 2 surgical options.
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Thomas J Smith; Derek Raghavan; Douglas W Blayney; Patricia A Ganz; Therese Marie Mulvey; Dana S Wollins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary B Barton; Carmen N West; In-Lu A Liu; Emily L Harris; Sharon J Rolnick; Joann G Elmore; Lisa J Herrinton; Sarah M Greene; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Suzanne W Fletcher; Ann M Geiger Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2005
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: E Shelley Hwang; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Barbara Fowble; Christina A Clarke Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Aya Mitani; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Tina Seto; Susan C Weber; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Monique A de Bruin; Kathleen Horst; Jeffrey Belkora; Suepattra G May; Dominick L Frosch; Douglas W Blayney; Harold S Luft; Amar K Das Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.921
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: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Mary L Greaney; Andrea F Patenaude; Ann H Partridge Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 2.223
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