Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Factors Predictive of Occult Malignancy or High-Risk Lesion and the Impact of MRI and Genetic Testing

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-287
Author(s):  
M.L. Pilewskie ◽  
D. McCartan
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
High Risk Lesion ◽  
Occult Malignancy ◽  
The Impact

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in affected carriers of deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: Does timing of genetic testing matter?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10512-10512
Author(s):  
J. Tchou ◽  
S. Sonnad ◽  
M. Sargen ◽  
B. Weber ◽  
K. Nathanson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Mutation Carriers ◽  
Brca2 Mutations

10512 Introduction: Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) reduces breast cancer risk by >90% in women who are carriers of deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Genetic testing prior to breast cancer surgery has been reported to affect PM decision in high-risk patients. The ideal timing of genetic testing as well as the clinical characteristics of affected mutation carriers electing PM remain unclear. This is a pilot study to identify significant clinical characteristics associated with affected carriers who had undergone PM. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on 103 breast cancer affected BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers that were seen at our high risk clinic who had undergone genetic testing between 1995 and 2005. Clinical characteristic, initial surgery treatment modalities, and dates of genetic testing and prophylactic mastectomy were collected and analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Results: Of the 103 affected mutation carriers, 30 (29%) underwent prophylactic mastectomy (PM) where as 73 (71%) did not (no PM). Ethnicity, age of diagnosis, tumor size, nodal status, family history and initial breast cancer surgery types (BCT vs. mastectomy) were not significantly different between the two groups. Of the 30 women who underwent PM, 19 (63%) vs. 9 (30%) underwent PM before and after their genetic testing respectively. Of the 19 women who had PM before their genetic testing, 4 (21%) had BCT as initial treatment whereas 15 (78.9%) had mastectomy as initial treatment and 9 of 15 (60%) had synchronous contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. For the 9 women who had PM after their genetic testing, 5 (56%) had BCT vs. 4 (44%) had mastectomy as their initial surgical treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this study, we found a significant correlation between the initial breast cancer surgical modality of mastectomy with women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. The impact of family history of breast cancer does not appear to be significant. Physician recommendations or patient preference are unknown. Our data suggest that high risk women who elect mastectomy as their initial surgical management to treat their breast cancer are more likely to undergo prophylactic mastectomy regardless of knowledge of their mutation status. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Occult Malignancy in Patients Undergoing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

2011 ◽  
Vol 254 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tari A. King ◽  
Inga Gurevich ◽  
Rita Sakr ◽  
Sujata Patil ◽  
Michelle Stempel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Occult Malignancy

The impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 96-96
Author(s):  
L. J. McGhan ◽  
B. A. Pockaj ◽  
R. J. Gray ◽  
S. P. Bagaria ◽  
S. A. McLaughlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Tumor Grade ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Unilateral Breast Cancer ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Implant Reconstruction

96 Background: In the last decade there has been an increase in the incidence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral breast cancer. Although many factors have been proposed to explain this trend, the impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo CPM has not been extensively studied. Methods: A retrospective review of breast cancer patients from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry data (2004-2008) was conducted. Characteristics of patients undergoing CPM were evaluated. Results: 71,176 patients with a diagnosis of stage I-III infiltrating ductal or lobular breast cancer underwent mastectomy for their primary lesion. Among these, 10,558 patients (15%) underwent a CPM. A significantly higher proportion of women undergoing CPM had reconstruction performed (44%) than those patients not undergoing CPM (13%), p<0.001. On multivariate analysis (Table), significant variables predicting CPM included age <50 years (OR 10.12), breast reconstruction (OR 3.58), and lobular histology (OR 1.41), all p<0.001. Of the 12,466 patients (18%) who underwent reconstruction, 4,636 (37%) had implant reconstruction, 4,498 (36%) had tissue reconstruction, and 1,122 (9%) had combined tissue/implant reconstruction (no data for 18%). On multivariate analysis, predictors of reconstruction included age <50 years (OR 20.5; CI 18.5-22.7), year of surgery (2008 vs. 2004; OR 1.60; CI 1.49-1.71), low tumor grade (OR 1.19; CI 1.13-1.25) and ER+ status (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.10-1.23). The use of radiation therapy was associated with a lower likelihood of pursuing reconstruction (OR 0.61; CI 0.58-0.65). Conclusions: Apart from age, the factor most strongly associated with CPM is the decision to have reconstructive surgery performed. This suggests that CPM may not be purely associated with risk-reduction but also with treatment factors such as cosmesis. [Table: see text]

Factors leading to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1528-1528
Author(s):  
M. Yi ◽  
K. K. Hunt ◽  
B. K. Arun ◽  
I. Bedrosian ◽  
A. M. Gutierrez Barrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Primary Breast Cancer ◽  
Contralateral Breast Cancer ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Contralateral Breast ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tumor Characteristics ◽  
Increased Risk

1528 Background: Women with breast cancer have an increased risk of developing contralateral breast cancer in their lifetime. Thus increasing numbers of women have been electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) at the time of their initial breast cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to identify factors that determine the decision for CPM in patients at a major cancer center. Methods: 2,544 women with Stage 0-III unilateral primary breast cancer who underwent surgery to the breast at our institution from January 2000 to August 2006 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated and comparisons were made between patients who did or did not undergo CPM using logistic regression. Results: Of the 2,544 patients, 1254 (49.3%) underwent total mastectomy for their known cancer; 282 (22.5%) of these patients underwent immediate or delayed CPM. Overall, 171 patients (6.7%) had genetic testing; and the use of testing increased in the latter years of the study (3.% in 2000–2002 vs. 8.2% in 2003–2006, p<.0001). 49 of 171 patients had genetic testing prior to surgery. 10 had a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation, 9 of whom had a CPM (p=.002). 14 patients without a mutation also had a CPM. Multivariate analysis revealed factors associated with use of CPM were: age younger than 50, white race, family history of breast cancer, higher clinical tumor stage, invasive lobular histology, and use of reconstruction (Table). Conclusions: Both patient and tumor characteristics influence selection of CPM. Although the use of genetic testing is increasing, most women elect to undergo CPM without having genetic testing. Evidence-driven models are needed to better inform women of their absolute risk of contralateral breast cancer as well as competing risk from their primary breast cancer in order to empower them in their active-decision-making. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Measuring the impact and sustainability of a statewide program for identifying minority and underserved clients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC): An eight-year follow up including transitions during the COVID pandemic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18546-e18546
Author(s):  
Alice S. Kerber ◽  
Sheryl G. A. Gabram ◽  
Diane Durrence ◽  
Janet Y. Shin ◽  
Nancy M. Paris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Surveillance Data ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Underserved Women ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

e18546 Background: The Georgia Breast Cancer Genomics Program was created with 2011-2014 funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH). In collaboration with GDPH and the Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education (Georgia CORE), the goal of the program has been to reduce disparities among high-risk minority and underserved women. The objective of this study is to report the 8-year surveillance data for women at increased risk for HBOC in statewide public health centers. The effect of the COVID pandemic on the program and sustainability is also reported. Methods: From 11/1/2012-12/31/2020, the program provided education, outreach and collected surveillance data using an online genetics referral screening tool as recommended by USPSTF. Providers in 159 counties and health centers across Georgia were educated in cancer family history collection and appropriate referral to genetics. When an individual was found to be at high risk, she was referred to the Georgia CORE Genetics Advanced Practice Nurse for additional education, genetic testing and follow-up. Results: Online screenings attributable to GDPH totaled 29,087 with 1,656 positive screens. 28 % of clients were less than 25 years of age and 56 % ranged from 25-54. Race: 33 % white, 41 % black, 15 % Hispanic and 11 % other or N/A. 92 % of referrals were uninsured. Genetic testing was started or completed on 430 clients. 36 individuals declined testing after counseling (reconsideration, insurance, unknown reasons) and were provided with contact information. 47 (11%) pathogenic, clinically significant mutations were identified including 37 (79 %) HBOC related mutations and 10 (21 %) Lynch related mutations. Variants of uncertain significance were identified in 90 (21 %) clients, with multiple variants in 40 of those. 27 clients have been served through GDPH for physician consultation and surveillance. 13 were referred to area resources: one diagnosed with cancer, and 7 chose referral to other health care providers. Because of the pandemic, the program transitioned to telecommunications and remote access to testing in 5/2020. From 5/2020-12/2020, 34 clients completed testing (41% minority, all uninsured). 10 (29%) clinically significant mutations were identified and heightened surveillance initiated. Conclusions: The GDPH and Georgia CORE collaborative genomics program has served clients over the past 8 years, adjusting to changing resources while reaching a significant number of minority and underserved women. The program successfully converted to remote services during the COVID pandemic. Lessons learned from this transition have been incorporated into planning for future program sustainability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document