Jada G Hamilton1,2, Margaux C Genoff3, Melissa Salerno4, Kimberly Amoroso4, Sherry R Boyar4,5, Margaret Sheehan4, Megan Harlan Fleischut4, Beth Siegel4, Angela G Arnold4, Erin E Salo-Mullen4, Jennifer L Hay3,6, Kenneth Offit4,7, Mark E Robson4,7. 1. Behavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, 7th floor, New York, 10022, NY, USA. hamiltoj@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. hamiltoj@mskcc.org. 3. Behavioral Sciences Service, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Avenue, 7th floor, New York, 10022, NY, USA. 4. Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women who are newly diagnosed with breast cancer may consider contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to reduce their future risk of cancer in their unaffected breast. Pre-surgical BRCA1/2 genetic testing can provide valuable risk information to guide this choice. However, little is understood about why BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, who are generally not at substantially elevated risk of contralateral disease, select CPM. METHODS: We examined the uptake of CPM among breast cancer patients identified as BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers (n = 92) as part of a larger prospective study of the impact of pre-surgical BRCA1/2 testing. Data obtained from self-report questionnaires and patient medical records were used to examine associations between theoretically relevant background and psychosocial factors and BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' decisions to undergo CPM. RESULTS: Among BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, 25% (n = 23) elected to undergo CPM. Psychosocial factors including a self-reported physician recommendation for CPM, greater perceived contralateral breast cancer risk, and greater perceived benefits of CPM were all significantly associated with the uptake of CPM. CONCLUSIONS: A sizeable minority of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers choose to undergo CPM after learning their mutation status through pre-surgical genetic testing. BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' cognitive perceptions and social influences appear to be important in shaping their decisions regarding CPM. This work highlights the importance of several psychosocial factors in influencing patients' surgical decisions. Future research is needed that examines the formation of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' beliefs regarding their disease and available treatment options, and that characterizes the physician-patient communication that occurs in this complex decision-making context.
PURPOSE:Women who are newly diagnosed with breast cancer may consider contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to reduce their future risk of cancer in their unaffected breast. Pre-surgical BRCA1/2 genetic testing can provide valuable risk information to guide this choice. However, little is understood about why BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, who are generally not at substantially elevated risk of contralateral disease, select CPM. METHODS: We examined the uptake of CPM among breast cancerpatients identified as BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers (n = 92) as part of a larger prospective study of the impact of pre-surgical BRCA1/2 testing. Data obtained from self-report questionnaires and patient medical records were used to examine associations between theoretically relevant background and psychosocial factors and BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' decisions to undergo CPM. RESULTS: Among BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers, 25% (n = 23) elected to undergo CPM. Psychosocial factors including a self-reported physician recommendation for CPM, greater perceived contralateral breast cancer risk, and greater perceived benefits of CPM were all significantly associated with the uptake of CPM. CONCLUSIONS: A sizeable minority of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers choose to undergo CPM after learning their mutation status through pre-surgical genetic testing. BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' cognitive perceptions and social influences appear to be important in shaping their decisions regarding CPM. This work highlights the importance of several psychosocial factors in influencing patients' surgical decisions. Future research is needed that examines the formation of BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers' beliefs regarding their disease and available treatment options, and that characterizes the physician-patient communication that occurs in this complex decision-making context.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Decision-making; Genetic testing; Prevention; Prophylactic mastectomy
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: Marlene H Frost; Jeffrey M Slezak; Nho V Tran; Constance I Williams; Joanne L Johnson; John E Woods; Paul M Petty; John H Donohue; Clive S Grant; Jeff A Sloan; Thomas A Sellers; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark Robson; Tiffany Svahn; Beryl McCormick; Patrick Borgen; Clifford A Hudis; Larry Norton; Kenneth Offit Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Kelly Metcalfe; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Ivo Olivotto; Ellen Warner; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrea Eisen; Barbara Weber; Jane McLennan; Ping Sun; William D Foulkes; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anne S Reiner; Esther M John; Jennifer D Brooks; Charles F Lynch; Leslie Bernstein; Lene Mellemkjær; Kathleen E Malone; Julia A Knight; Marinela Capanu; Sharon N Teraoka; Patrick Concannon; Xiaolin Liang; Jane C Figueiredo; Susan A Smith; Marilyn Stovall; Malcolm C Pike; Robert W Haile; Duncan C Thomas; Colin B Begg; Jonine L Bernstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David W Lim; Helene Retrouvey; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Toni Zhong; Stefan O P Hofer; David R McCready; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
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