Cargando…

Streamlining Decision Making in Contralateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Impact of PREDICT and BOADICEA Computations

INTRODUCTION: Patients with sporadic breast cancer (BC) have low contralateral breast cancer risk (CLBCR; approximately 0.7% per annum) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) offers no survival advantage. CPM with autologous reconstruction (AR) has major morbidity and resource implications....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Silva, Tania Samantha, Russell, Victoria Rose, Henry, Francis Patrick, Thiruchelvam, Paul Thomas Ryan, Hadjiminas, Dimitri John, Al-Mufti, Ragheed, Hogben, Roselyn Katy, Hunter, Judith, Wood, Simon, Jallali, Navid, Leff, Daniel Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30019305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6593-4
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Patients with sporadic breast cancer (BC) have low contralateral breast cancer risk (CLBCR; approximately 0.7% per annum) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) offers no survival advantage. CPM with autologous reconstruction (AR) has major morbidity and resource implications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the impact of PREDICT survival estimates and lifetime CLBCR scores on decision making for CPM in patients with unilateral BC. METHODS: Of n = 272 consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy and AR, 252 were included. Five- and 10-year survival was computed with the PREDICT(V2) online prognostication tool, using age and clinicopathological factors. Based on family history (FH) and tumor biology, CLBCR was calculated using validated BODICEA web-based software. Survival scores were correlated against CLBCR estimates to identify patients receiving CPM with ‘low’ CLBCR (< 30% lifetime risk) and poor prognosis (5-year survival < 80%). Patients with ‘high’ CLBCR receiving unilateral mastectomy (UM) were similarly identified (UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence [NICE] criteria for CPM, ≥ 30% lifetime BC risk). Justifications motivating CPM were investigated. RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 215 had UM and 37 had bilateral mastectomy and AR. Only 23 (62%) patients receiving CPM fulfilled the NICE criteria. Of 215 patients, 5 (2.3%) failed to undergo CPM despite high CLBCR and good prognosis. CPMs were performed, at the patient’s request, for no clear justification (n = 8), contralateral non-invasive disease, and/or FH (n = 5), FH alone (n = 4) and ipsilateral cancer recurrence-related anxiety (n = 3). CONCLUSION: In the absence of prospective risk estimates of CLBCR and prognosis, certain patients receive CPM and reconstruction despite modest CLBCR, yet a proportion of patients with good prognoses and substantial risk are not undergoing CPM.