E Shelley Hwang1, Tracie D Locklear2, Christel N Rushing2, Greg Samsa2, Amy P Abernethy2, Terry Hyslop2, Dunya M Atisha2. 1. E. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. shelley.hwang@duke.edu. 2. E. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPMs) continues to rise, although there is little evidence to support improvement in quality of life (QOL) with CPM. We sought to ascertain whether patient-reported outcomes and, more specifically, QOL differed according to receipt of CPM. METHODS: Volunteers recruited from the Army of Women with a history of breast cancer surgery took an electronically administered survey, which included the BREAST-Q, a well-validated breast surgery outcomes patient-reporting tool, and demographic and treatment-related questions. Descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of CPM with four BREAST-Q QOL domains. RESULTS: A total of 7,619 women completed questionnaires; of those eligible, 3,977 had a mastectomy and 1,598 reported receipt of CPM. Women undergoing CPM were younger than those who did not choose CPM. On unadjusted analysis, mean breast satisfaction was higher in the CPM group (60.4 v 57.9, P < .001) and mean physical well-being was lower in the CPM group (74.6 v 76.6, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the CPM group continued to report higher breast satisfaction (P = .046) and psychosocial well-being (P = .017), but no difference was reported in the no-CPM group in the other QOL domains. CONCLUSION: Choice for CPM was associated with an improvement in breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being. However, the magnitude of the effect may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Such patient-reported outcomes data are important to consider when counseling women contemplating CPM as part of their breast cancer treatment.
PURPOSE: The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPMs) continues to rise, although there is little evidence to support improvement in quality of life (QOL) with CPM. We sought to ascertain whether patient-reported outcomes and, more specifically, QOL differed according to receipt of CPM. METHODS: Volunteers recruited from the Army of Women with a history of breast cancer surgery took an electronically administered survey, which included the BREAST-Q, a well-validated breast surgery outcomes patient-reporting tool, and demographic and treatment-related questions. Descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of CPM with four BREAST-Q QOL domains. RESULTS: A total of 7,619 women completed questionnaires; of those eligible, 3,977 had a mastectomy and 1,598 reported receipt of CPM. Women undergoing CPM were younger than those who did not choose CPM. On unadjusted analysis, mean breast satisfaction was higher in the CPM group (60.4 v 57.9, P < .001) and mean physical well-being was lower in the CPM group (74.6 v 76.6, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the CPM group continued to report higher breast satisfaction (P = .046) and psychosocial well-being (P = .017), but no difference was reported in the no-CPM group in the other QOL domains. CONCLUSION: Choice for CPM was associated with an improvement in breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being. However, the magnitude of the effect may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Such patient-reported outcomes data are important to consider when counseling women contemplating CPM as part of their breast cancer treatment.
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: Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mirelle Lagendijk; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Tari A King; Christopher Gibbons; Andrea Pusic; Laura S Dominici Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-17
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: Catherine Pesce; Jennifer Jaffe; Kristine Kuchta; Katharine Yao; Mark Sisco Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne F Klassen; Laura Dominici; Sarah Fuzesi; Stefan J Cano; Dunya Atisha; Tracie Locklear; Madelijn L Gregorowitsch; Elena Tsangaris; Monica Morrow; Tari King; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.344