Reshma Jagsi1, Sarah T Hawley2, Kent A Griffith3, Nancy K Janz4, Allison W Kurian5, Kevin C Ward6, Ann S Hamilton7, Monica Morrow8, Steven J Katz9. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor3Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor4Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Ann Arbor. 3. University of Michigan Center for Cancer Biostatistics, Ann Arbor. 4. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. 5. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 6. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 8. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor3Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
Importance: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use is increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer, but little is known about treatment decision making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations. Objective: To evaluate patient motivations, knowledge, and decisions, as well as the impact of surgeon recommendations, in a large, diverse sample of patients who underwent recent treatment for breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was sent to 3631 women with newly diagnosed, unilateral stage 0, I, or II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014. Women were identified through the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries of Los Angeles County and Georgia. Data on surgical decisions, motivations for those decisions, and knowledge were included in the analysis. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression of the data were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) CPM vs all other treatments combined, (2) CPM vs unilateral mastectomy (UM), and (3) CPM vs breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Associations between CPM receipt and surgeon recommendations were also evaluated. All statistical models and summary estimates were weighted to be representative of the target population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of CPM was the primary dependent variable for analysis and was measured by a woman's self-report of her treatment. Results: Of the 3631 women selected to receive the survey, 2578 (71.0%) responded and 2402 of these respondents who did not have bilateral disease and for whom surgery type was known constituted the final analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 61.8 (12) years at the time of the survey. Overall, 1301 (43.9%) patients considered CPM (601 [24.8%] considered it very strongly or strongly); only 395 (38.1%) of them knew that CPM does not improve survival for all women with breast cancer. Ultimately, 1466 women (61.6%) received BCS, 508 (21.2%) underwent UM, and 428 (17.3%) received CPM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CPM included younger age (per 5-year increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77), white race (black vs white: OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74), higher educational level (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.20-2.40), family history (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.22-2.17), and private insurance (Medicaid vs private insurance: OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79). Among 1569 patients (65.5%) without high genetic risk or an identified mutation, 598 (39.3%) reported a surgeon recommendation against CPM, of whom only 12 (1.9%) underwent CPM, but among the 746 (46.8%) of these women who received no recommendation for or against CPM from a surgeon, 148 (19.0%) underwent CPM. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients consider CPM, but knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is low when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. More effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.
Importance: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use is increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer, but little is known about treatment decision making or physician interactions in diverse patient populations. Objective: To evaluate patient motivations, knowledge, and decisions, as well as the impact of surgeon recommendations, in a large, diverse sample of patients who underwent recent treatment for breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was sent to 3631 women with newly diagnosed, unilateral stage 0, I, or II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014. Women were identified through the population-based Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries of Los Angeles County and Georgia. Data on surgical decisions, motivations for those decisions, and knowledge were included in the analysis. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression of the data were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) CPM vs all other treatments combined, (2) CPM vs unilateral mastectomy (UM), and (3) CPM vs breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Associations between CPM receipt and surgeon recommendations were also evaluated. All statistical models and summary estimates were weighted to be representative of the target population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of CPM was the primary dependent variable for analysis and was measured by a woman's self-report of her treatment. Results: Of the 3631 women selected to receive the survey, 2578 (71.0%) responded and 2402 of these respondents who did not have bilateral disease and for whom surgery type was known constituted the final analytic sample. The mean (SD) age was 61.8 (12) years at the time of the survey. Overall, 1301 (43.9%) patients considered CPM (601 [24.8%] considered it very strongly or strongly); only 395 (38.1%) of them knew that CPM does not improve survival for all women with breast cancer. Ultimately, 1466 women (61.6%) received BCS, 508 (21.2%) underwent UM, and 428 (17.3%) received CPM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CPM included younger age (per 5-year increase: odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77), white race (black vs white: OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74), higher educational level (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.20-2.40), family history (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.22-2.17), and private insurance (Medicaid vs private insurance: OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.79). Among 1569 patients (65.5%) without high genetic risk or an identified mutation, 598 (39.3%) reported a surgeon recommendation against CPM, of whom only 12 (1.9%) underwent CPM, but among the 746 (46.8%) of these women who received no recommendation for or against CPM from a surgeon, 148 (19.0%) underwent CPM. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients consider CPM, but knowledge about the procedure is low and discussions with surgeons appear to be incomplete. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use is substantial among patients without clinical indications but is low when patients report that their surgeon recommended against it. More effective physician-patient communication about CPM is needed to reduce potential overtreatment.
Authors: Laura Grimmer; Erik Liederbach; Jose Velasco; Catherine Pesce; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Katharine Yao Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Melissa A Crosby; Yu Shen; Dalliah M Black; Gildy Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Jun Ying; Wenli Dong; Scott B Cantor; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Jennifer E Axilbund; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Beth Crawford; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; P Kelly Marcom; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Huma Rana; Gwen Reiser; Mark E Robson; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alison Whelan; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar; Susan Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 11.908
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
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Natalie B Jones; John Wilson; Linda Kotur; Julie Stephens; William B Farrar; Doreen M Agnese Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; H C Pan; C Taylor; Y C Wang; M Dowsett; J Ingle; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maria Papaleontiou; David Reyes-Gastelum; Brittany L Gay; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Sarah T Hawley; Megan R Haymart Journal: Thyroid Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Thomas A D'Agostino; Abenaa M Brewster; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Patricia A Parker Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Joan M Neuner; Ann B Nattinger; Tina Yen; Emily McGinley; Michael Nattinger; Liliana E Pezzin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Yun Li; Lawrence C An; Kenneth Resnicow; Nancy K Janz; Michael S Sabel; Kevin C Ward; Angela Fagerlin; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis M Deapen; Paul Abrahamse; Irina Bondarenko; Yun Li; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046