BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that the decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy are closely related. In this article, the relationship between method of reconstruction and decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is described. Recent trends in contralateral use in the context of literature questioning its oncologic benefit are also evaluated. METHODS: Female patients with unilateral breast cancer were identified and data extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 through 2010. Logistic regression analyses were performed to study the relationship between having contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and key demographic, oncologic, and reconstructive factors among women with unilateral breast cancer. RESULTS: A total of 157,042 patients with unilateral breast cancer were included. The contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate increased from 7.7 percent to 28.3 percent during the study period, and the proportion of reconstructed patients who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased from 19 percent to 46 percent. Reconstruction was associated with higher odds of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR, 2.79; 95 percent CI, 2.70 to 2.88; p < 0.0001). Among women who had reconstruction, implant-based reconstruction was associated with significantly higher odds of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy than autologous tissue reconstruction (OR, 1.38; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that reconstruction and the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy are closely related, with implant reconstruction dominating in these patients. Given the close relationship between reconstruction and the choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, plastic surgeons should play an active role in educating patients to avoid decisions made based on inaccurate information. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that the decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy are closely related. In this article, the relationship between method of reconstruction and decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is described. Recent trends in contralateral use in the context of literature questioning its oncologic benefit are also evaluated. METHODS: Female patients with unilateral breast cancer were identified and data extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2000 through 2010. Logistic regression analyses were performed to study the relationship between having contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and key demographic, oncologic, and reconstructive factors among women with unilateral breast cancer. RESULTS: A total of 157,042 patients with unilateral breast cancer were included. The contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate increased from 7.7 percent to 28.3 percent during the study period, and the proportion of reconstructed patients who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy increased from 19 percent to 46 percent. Reconstruction was associated with higher odds of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR, 2.79; 95 percent CI, 2.70 to 2.88; p < 0.0001). Among women who had reconstruction, implant-based reconstruction was associated with significantly higher odds of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy than autologous tissue reconstruction (OR, 1.38; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that reconstruction and the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy are closely related, with implant reconstruction dominating in these patients. Given the close relationship between reconstruction and the choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, plastic surgeons should play an active role in educating patients to avoid decisions made based on inaccurate information. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
Authors: Adeyiza O Momoh; Wess A Cohen; Kelley M Kidwell; Jennifer B Hamill; Ji Qi; Andrea L Pusic; Edwin G Wilkins; Evan Matros Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Adeyiza O Momoh; Kent A Griffith; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dean Shumway; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Mary C Schroeder; Yu-Yu Tien; Lillian M Erdahl; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Brahmendra R Viyyuri; Sonia L Sugg Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Meghana G Shamsunder; Hina Panchal; Melissa Pilewskie; Clara Lee; Shantanu N Razdan; Evan Matros Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.532
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: Alison S Baskin; Ton Wang; Brooke C Bredbeck; Brandy R Sinco; Nicholas L Berlin; Lesly A Dossett Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 2.417