Elizabeth Gilbert1, Emily C Zabor2, Michelle Stempel1, Debra Mangino1, Alexandra Heerdt1, Melissa Pilewskie3. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. pilewskm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA mutation have significantly elevated breast cancer risk, which can be reduced by >90% with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). We sought to compare a cohort of BRCA mutation carriers choosing BPM versus breast surveillance to better elucidate factors that may impact decision making. METHODS: Women with a BRCA mutation were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. The surveillance cohort (n = 313) consisted of women seen in a high-risk clinic between 2014 and 2016, while the surgery cohort (n = 142) consisted of women who underwent BPM between 2010 and 2016. Clinical and familial factors were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Women choosing BPM were more likely to have a BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutation compared with the surveillance group (57 vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and were less likely to have a personal history of ovarian cancer (10 vs. 20%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, women undergoing BPM were more likely to be married (78 vs. 62%, p = 0.01), to have more children (median 2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), and to have undergone a prophylactic oophorectomy (61 vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Women choosing BPM had more first-degree relatives (63 vs. 48%, p = 0.01) or a sister (23 vs. 14%, p = 0.02) with a history of breast cancer and were more likely to have a family member with ovarian cancer under the age of 40 years (9 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). There was no difference in the number of prior breast biopsies or history of atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSION: The decision to undergo BPM appears multifactorial, with gene mutation, family history, and relationships appearing to have the strongest influence on decision making.
BACKGROUND:Women with a BRCA mutation have significantly elevated breast cancer risk, which can be reduced by >90% with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). We sought to compare a cohort of BRCA mutation carriers choosing BPM versus breast surveillance to better elucidate factors that may impact decision making. METHODS:Women with a BRCA mutation were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. The surveillance cohort (n = 313) consisted of women seen in a high-risk clinic between 2014 and 2016, while the surgery cohort (n = 142) consisted of women who underwent BPM between 2010 and 2016. Clinical and familial factors were compared between the groups. RESULTS:Women choosing BPM were more likely to have a BRCA1 than BRCA2 mutation compared with the surveillance group (57 vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and were less likely to have a personal history of ovarian cancer (10 vs. 20%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, women undergoing BPM were more likely to be married (78 vs. 62%, p = 0.01), to have more children (median 2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), and to have undergone a prophylactic oophorectomy (61 vs. 37%, p < 0.001). Women choosing BPM had more first-degree relatives (63 vs. 48%, p = 0.01) or a sister (23 vs. 14%, p = 0.02) with a history of breast cancer and were more likely to have a family member with ovarian cancer under the age of 40 years (9 vs. 4%, p = 0.03). There was no difference in the number of prior breast biopsies or history of atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSION: The decision to undergo BPM appears multifactorial, with gene mutation, family history, and relationships appearing to have the strongest influence on decision making.
Authors: B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; C Seynaeve; C J van Asperen; M G E M Ausems; J M Collée; H C van Doorn; E B Gomez Garcia; C M Kets; F E van Leeuwen; H E J Meijers-Heijboer; M J E Mourits; T A M van Os; H F A Vasen; S Verhoef; M A Rookus; M J Hooning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J P Struewing; P Hartge; S Wacholder; S M Baker; M Berlin; M McAdams; M M Timmerman; L C Brody; M A Tucker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-05-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S U Dhar; H P Cooper; T Wang; B Parks; S A Staggs; S Hilsenbeck; S E Plon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli; Jan Lubinski; Jacek Gronwald; Henry Lynch; Pal Moller; Parviz Ghadirian; William D Foulkes; Jan Klijn; Eitan Friedman; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Barry Rosen; Susan Domchek; Teresa Wagner; Nadine Tung; Siranoush Manoukian; Fergus Couch; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Danielle A Henry; Marie C Lee; Deanna Almanza; Kamran A Ahmed; Weihong Sun; David C Boulware; Christine Laronga Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lee Galmor; Rinat Bernstein-Molho; Miri Sklair-Levy; Dana Madoursky-Feldman; Dov Zippel; Yael Laitman; Eitan Friedman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.872