Clara Nan-Hi Lee1,2,3, Allison M Deal4, Ruth Huh4, Peter Anthony Ubel5,6,7, Yuen-Jong Liu8, Lillian Blizard9, Caprice Hunt10, Michael Patrick Pignone11,12. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 2. Richard J. Solove Research Institute, Comprehensive Cancer Center-Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 3. Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 4. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 5. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina Hospitals, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 9. Gastrointestinal Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 10. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 11. Department of Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin. 12. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Breast reconstruction has the potential to improve a person's body image and quality of life but has important risks. Variations in who undergoes breast reconstruction have led to questions about the quality of patient decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 27, 2012, to February 28, 2014, at a single, academic, multidisciplinary oncology clinic among women planning to undergo mastectomy for stage I to III invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylaxis. EXPOSURES: Mastectomy only and mastectomy with reconstruction. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Knowledge, as ascertained using the Decision Quality Instrument; preference concordance, based on rating and ranking of key attributes; and decision quality, defined as having knowledge of 50% or more and preference concordance. RESULTS: During the 20-month period, 214 patients were eligible, 182 were approached, and 32 missed. We enrolled 145 patients (79.7% enrollment rate), and received surveys from 131 patients (72.0% participation rate). Five participants became ineligible. The final study population was 126 patients. Among the 126 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [12.1] years), the mean (SD) knowledge score was 58.5% (16.2%) and did not differ by treatment group (mastectomy only, 55.2% [15.0%]; mastectomy with reconstruction, 60.5% [16.5%]). A total of 82 of 123 participants (66.7%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy only; 39 of these women (47.6%) underwent mastectomy only. A total of 41 participants (32.5%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy with reconstruction; 36 of these women (87.8%) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Overall, 52 of 120 participants (43.3%) made a high-quality decision. In multivariable analysis, white race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.00-7.38; P = .05), having private insurance (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35-1.93; P < .001), having a high school education or less (vs some college) (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.22-19.21; P = .02), having a college degree (vs some college) (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; P < .001), and not having a malignant neoplasm (eg, BRCA carriers) (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.25-7.85; P = .01) were independently associated with making a high-quality decision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minority of patients undergoing mastectomy in a single academic center made a high-quality decision about reconstruction. Shared decision making is needed to support decisions about breast reconstruction.
IMPORTANCE: Breast reconstruction has the potential to improve a person's body image and quality of life but has important risks. Variations in who undergoes breast reconstruction have led to questions about the quality of patient decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 27, 2012, to February 28, 2014, at a single, academic, multidisciplinary oncology clinic among women planning to undergo mastectomy for stage I to III invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylaxis. EXPOSURES: Mastectomy only and mastectomy with reconstruction. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Knowledge, as ascertained using the Decision Quality Instrument; preference concordance, based on rating and ranking of key attributes; and decision quality, defined as having knowledge of 50% or more and preference concordance. RESULTS: During the 20-month period, 214 patients were eligible, 182 were approached, and 32 missed. We enrolled 145 patients (79.7% enrollment rate), and received surveys from 131 patients (72.0% participation rate). Five participants became ineligible. The final study population was 126 patients. Among the 126 women in the study (mean [SD] age, 53.2 [12.1] years), the mean (SD) knowledge score was 58.5% (16.2%) and did not differ by treatment group (mastectomy only, 55.2% [15.0%]; mastectomy with reconstruction, 60.5% [16.5%]). A total of 82 of 123 participants (66.7%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy only; 39 of these women (47.6%) underwent mastectomy only. A total of 41 participants (32.5%) had a calculated treatment preference of mastectomy with reconstruction; 36 of these women (87.8%) underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. Overall, 52 of 120 participants (43.3%) made a high-quality decision. In multivariable analysis, white race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.00-7.38; P = .05), having private insurance (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35-1.93; P < .001), having a high school education or less (vs some college) (OR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.22-19.21; P = .02), having a college degree (vs some college) (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; P < .001), and not having a malignant neoplasm (eg, BRCA carriers) (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.25-7.85; P = .01) were independently associated with making a high-quality decision. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minority of patients undergoing mastectomy in a single academic center made a high-quality decision about reconstruction. Shared decision making is needed to support decisions about breast reconstruction.
Authors: Caprice K Christian; Joyce Niland; Stephen B Edge; Rebecca A Ottesen; Melissa E Hughes; Richard Theriault; John Wilson; Charles A Hergrueter; Jane C Weeks Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Amy K Alderman; Sarah T Hawley; Nancy K Janz; Mahasin S Mujahid; Monica Morrow; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Nancy K Janz; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Michael Pignone; Purva Abhyankar; Nananda Col; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Carrie A Levin; Arwen H Pieterse; Valerie Reyna; Anne Stiggelbout; Laura D Scherer; Celia Wills; Holly O Witteman Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
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: Katherine B Santosa; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Natalie J Del Vecchio; Natoshia M Askelson; Knute D Carter; Elizabeth Chrischilles; Charles F Lynch; Mary E Charlton Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Tanvee Singh; Lakshmi Goparaju; Aviram M Giladi; Oluseyi Aliu; David H Song; Kenneth L Fan Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Sachiko M Oshima; Sarah D Tait; Christel Rushing; Whitney Lane; Terry Hyslop; Anaeze C Offodile; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Rachel Greenup; Laura J Fish Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: Jessica M Hasak; Terence M Myckatyn; Victoria F Grabinski; Sydney E Philpott; Rajiv P Parikh; Mary C Politi Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2017-11-13
Authors: Clara Nan-Hi Lee; Michael Patrick Pignone; Allison M Deal; Lillian Blizard; Caprice Hunt; Ruth Huh; Yuen-Jong Liu; Peter Anthony Ubel Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 14.766