Kelly Fairbairn1,2, Andrew Cervantes3, Constanze Rayhrer4, Shawn Steen3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Ventura County Medical Center, 300 Hillmont Ave Building 340, Suite 401, Ventura, CA, 93003-3099, USA. KFairbairn@cmhshealth.org. 2. Department of Surgery, Community Memorial Hospital, Ventura, CA, 93003, USA. KFairbairn@cmhshealth.org. 3. Department of Surgery, Ventura County Medical Center, 300 Hillmont Ave Building 340, Suite 401, Ventura, CA, 93003-3099, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Community Memorial Hospital, Ventura, CA, 93003, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many breast cancer patients remove their contralateral breast unaffected by cancer, commonly referred to as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). CPM has been extensively studied and does not improve survival in patients without deleterious genetic mutation or lobular histology. Despite these limited indications, CPM rates have increased recently. We observed CPM trends in our county safety-net hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of women treated for breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy in our institution. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 CPMs: 51% (n = 51) had bilateral breast MRI before CPM, 54% (n = 54) had genetic testing prior to CPM, and 56% (n = 30) had a deleterious genetic result. Another 12% (n = 12) had lobular histology as the primary determinant for CPM. Of patients without genetic mutation or lobular histology, 13% (n = 13) had suspicious MRI findings in the CPM side that drove the decision for CPM. Forty-seven percent (n = 47) had reconstructive surgery documented. CONCLUSION: Only 42% (n = 42) of patients who underwent CPM had a documented justifiable medical reason. In the future, physician and patient education may decrease unindicated CPM. We also found that 13% of women without a medical indication chose CPM based on suspicious MRI findings, while only 8% of these MRI findings were malignant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
INTRODUCTION: Many breast cancerpatients remove their contralateral breast unaffected by cancer, commonly referred to as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). CPM has been extensively studied and does not improve survival in patients without deleterious genetic mutation or lobular histology. Despite these limited indications, CPM rates have increased recently. We observed CPM trends in our county safety-net hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of women treated for breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy in our institution. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 CPMs: 51% (n = 51) had bilateral breast MRI before CPM, 54% (n = 54) had genetic testing prior to CPM, and 56% (n = 30) had a deleterious genetic result. Another 12% (n = 12) had lobular histology as the primary determinant for CPM. Of patients without genetic mutation or lobular histology, 13% (n = 13) had suspicious MRI findings in the CPM side that drove the decision for CPM. Forty-seven percent (n = 47) had reconstructive surgery documented. CONCLUSION: Only 42% (n = 42) of patients who underwent CPM had a documented justifiable medical reason. In the future, physician and patient education may decrease unindicated CPM. We also found that 13% of women without a medical indication chose CPM based on suspicious MRI findings, while only 8% of these MRI findings were malignant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.