Mara Tynan1,2, Beth N Peshkin1,2, Claudine Isaacs1,2, Shawna Willey2,3, Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir4,5, Rachel Nusbaum6, Gillian Hooker7, Suzanne C O'Neill1,2, Lina Jandorf4, Scott P Kelly8, Jessica Heinzmann9, Sarah Kelleher10, Elizabeth Poggi1, Marc D Schwartz11,12,13. 1. Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 2. Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. 3. INOVA Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA, USA. 4. Icahn School of Medicine At Mount Sinai, Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Center for Behavioral Oncology, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland. 6. School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Concert Genetics, Inc, Franklin, TN, USA. 8. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, CA, USA. 9. Carol G. Simon Cancer Center, Atlantic Health Systems, Summit, NJ, USA. 10. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 11. Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. schwartm@georgetown.edu. 12. Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. schwartm@georgetown.edu. 13. Georgetown University, Harris Building, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. schwartm@georgetown.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM. RESULTS: Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM. CONCLUSION: The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancerpatients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancerpatients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM. RESULTS: Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM. CONCLUSION: The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancerpatients about treatment options.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; Decision making; Genetic testing
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: Holly J Pederson; Dharmesh Gopalakrishnan; Ryan Noss; Courtney Yanda; Charis Eng; Stephen R Grobmyer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Stephanie M Wong; Rachel A Freedman; Yasuaki Sagara; Fatih Aydogan; William T Barry; Mehra Golshan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Shailesh Agarwal; Kelley M Kidwell; Casey T Kraft; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Michael S Sabel; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Kent A Griffith; Nancy K Janz; Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Steven J Katz; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; M Chandler Mcleod; Lauren P Wallner; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Allison W Kurian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Morgan Butrick; Scott Kelly; Beth N Peshkin; George Luta; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian W Hooker; Kristi Graves; Lisa Feeley; Claudine Isaacs; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Lina Jandorf; Tiffani DeMarco; Marie Wood; Wendy McKinnon; Judy Garber; Shelley R McCormick; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Karoline B Kuchenbaecker; John L Hopper; Daniel R Barnes; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Thea M Mooij; Marie-José Roos-Blom; Sarah Jervis; Flora E van Leeuwen; Roger L Milne; Nadine Andrieu; David E Goldgar; Mary Beth Terry; Matti A Rookus; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou; Lesley McGuffog; D Gareth Evans; Daniel Barrowdale; Debra Frost; Julian Adlard; Kai-Ren Ong; Louise Izatt; Marc Tischkowitz; Ros Eeles; Rosemarie Davidson; Shirley Hodgson; Steve Ellis; Catherine Nogues; Christine Lasset; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Jean-Pierre Fricker; Laurence Faivre; Pascaline Berthet; Maartje J Hooning; Lizet E van der Kolk; Carolien M Kets; Muriel A Adank; Esther M John; Wendy K Chung; Irene L Andrulis; Melissa Southey; Mary B Daly; Saundra S Buys; Ana Osorio; Christoph Engel; Karin Kast; Rita K Schmutzler; Trinidad Caldes; Anna Jakubowska; Jacques Simard; Michael L Friedlander; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Eva Machackova; Lenka Foretova; Yen Y Tan; Christian F Singer; Edith Olah; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Brita Arver; Håkan Olsson Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272