4.7 Article

Clinical Management Factors Contribute to the Decision for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 16, Pages 2158-2164

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.4041

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To determine whether increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are due to recognition of risk factors for contralateral breast cancer (CBC) or treatment factors related to the index lesion. Methods From 1997 to 2005, 2,965 patients with stage 0 to III primary unilateral breast cancer underwent mastectomy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Patients who did and did not undergo CPM within 1 year of treatment for their index cancer were compared to identify independent predictors of CPM. Results The rate of CPM was 13.8% (n = 407), increasing from 6.7% in 1997 to 24.2% in 2005 (P<.0001). Patients with BRCA mutations or prior mantle radiation (n = 52) accounted for 13% of those having CPM. The rate of CPM by surgeon varied from 1% to 26%. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for surgeon-identified white race (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3), immediate reconstruction (OR = 3.3), family history of breast cancer (OR = 2.9), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at diagnosis (OR = 2.8), age younger than 50 years (OR = 2.2), noninvasive histology (OR = 1.8), and prior attempt at breast conversation (OR = 1.7) to be independent predictors of CPM. Conclusion These data suggest that increasing use of CPM is not associated with increased recognition of patients at high risk for CBC. Treatment factors, such as immediate reconstruction, preoperative MRI, and unsuccessful attempts at breast conservation, are associated with increased rates of CPM. Efforts to optimize breast conservation, minimize unnecessary tests, and improve patient education about the low risk of CBC may help to curb this trend.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available