-
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Nov 2017Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive... (Review)
Review
Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive technique, growing evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes, and shifts in mastectomy patterns. Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, instead of unilateral mastectomy or opting for breast conservation. The ascent in prophylactic surgeries correlates temporally to a shift toward prosthetic methods of reconstruction as the most common technique. Factors associated with the choice for implants include younger age, quicker recovery time, along with documented safety and enhanced aesthetic outcomes with newer generations of devices. Despite advances in autologous transfer, its growth is constrained by the greater technical expertise required to complete microsurgical transfer and potential barriers such as poor relative reimbursement. The increased use of radiation as an adjuvant treatment for management of breast cancer has created additional challenges for plastic surgeons who need to consider the optimal timing and method of breast reconstruction to perform in these patients.
Topics: Adipose Tissue; Breast Implantation; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mammaplasty; Radiotherapy; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 29064917
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003941 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.
SEARCH METHODS
Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.
Topics: Communication; Conservative Treatment; Decision Support Techniques; Elective Surgical Procedures; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Participation; Physician-Patient Relations; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28402085
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Aug 2017Skin-sparing (SSM) and nipple-sparing (NSM) mastectomies are relatively new conservative surgical approaches to breast cancer. In SSM most of the breast skin is... (Review)
Review
Skin-sparing (SSM) and nipple-sparing (NSM) mastectomies are relatively new conservative surgical approaches to breast cancer. In SSM most of the breast skin is conserved to create a pocket that facilitates immediate breast reconstruction with implant or autologous graft to achieve a quality cosmetic outcome. NSM is closely similar except that the nipple-areola complex (NAC) is also conserved. Meta-analyses indicate that outcomes for SSM and NSM do not differ from those for non-conservative mastectomies. Recurrence rates in the NAC after NSM are acceptably low (0-3.7%). Other studies indicate that NSM is associated with high patient satisfaction and good psychological adjustment. Indications are carcinoma or DCIS that require mastectomy (including after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). NSM is also suitable for women undergoing risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Tumor not less than 2 cm from the NAC is recommended, but may be less important than no evidence of nipple involvement on mandatory intraoperative nipple margin assessment. A positive margin is an absolute contraindication for nipple preservation. Other contraindications are microcalcifications close to the subareolar region and a positive nipple discharge. Complication rates are similar to those for other types of post-mastectomy reconstructions. The main complication of NSM is NAC necrosis, however as surgeon experience matures, frequency declines. Factors associated with complications are voluminous breast, ptosis, smoking, obesity, and radiotherapy. Since the access incision is small, breast tissue may be left behind, so only experienced breast surgeons should do these operations in close collaboration with the plastic surgeon. For breast cancer patients requiring mastectomy, NSM should be the option of choice.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Contraindications, Procedure; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Nipples; Organ Sparing Treatments; Patient Selection; Prophylactic Mastectomy; Skin
PubMed: 28673535
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.034 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Recent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased interest in RRM as a method of preventing breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006 and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
(i) To determine whether risk-reducing mastectomy reduces death rates from any cause in women who have never had breast cancer and in women who have a history of breast cancer in one breast, and (ii) to examine the effect of risk-reducing mastectomy on other endpoints, including breast cancer incidence, breast cancer mortality, disease-free survival, physical morbidity, and psychosocial outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
For this Review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 July 2016. We included studies in English.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Participants included women at risk for breast cancer in at least one breast. Interventions included all types of mastectomy performed for the purpose of preventing breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently abstracted data from each report. We summarized data descriptively; quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient reporting. We analyzed data separately for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). Four review authors assessed the methodological quality to determine whether or not the methods used sufficiently minimized selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias.
MAIN RESULTS
All 61 included studies were observational studies with some methodological limitations; randomized trials were absent. The studies presented data on 15,077 women with a wide range of risk factors for breast cancer, who underwent RRM.Twenty-one BRRM studies looking at the incidence of breast cancer or disease-specific mortality, or both, reported reductions after BRRM, particularly for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Twenty-six CRRM studies consistently reported reductions in incidence of contralateral breast cancer but were inconsistent about improvements in disease-specific survival. Seven studies attempted to control for multiple differences between intervention groups and showed no overall survival advantage for CRRM. Another study showed significantly improved survival following CRRM, but after adjusting for bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (BRRSO), the CRRM effect on all-cause mortality was no longer significant.Twenty studies assessed psychosocial measures; most reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision to have RRM but greater variation in satisfaction with cosmetic results. Worry over breast cancer was significantly reduced after BRRM when compared both to baseline worry levels and to the groups who opted for surveillance rather than BRRM, but there was diminished satisfaction with body image and sexual feelings.Seventeen case series reporting on adverse events from RRM with or without reconstruction reported rates of unanticipated reoperations from 4% in those without reconstruction to 64% in participants with reconstruction.In women who have had cancer in one breast, removing the other breast may reduce the incidence of cancer in that other breast, but there is insufficient evidence that this improves survival because of the continuing risk of recurrence or metastases from the original cancer. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While published observational studies demonstrated that BRRM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies are suggested. BRRM should be considered only among those at high risk of disease, for example, BRCA1/2 carriers. CRRM was shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence that CRRM improves survival, and studies that control for multiple confounding variables are recommended. It is possible that selection bias in terms of healthier, younger women being recommended for or choosing CRRM produces better overall survival numbers for CRRM. Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention when considering RRM.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genes, BRCA1; Genes, BRCA2; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Complications; Prophylactic Mastectomy; Risk Assessment; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 29620792
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002748.pub4 -
The Surgical Clinics of North America Dec 2021Breast surgical oncology is a rapidly evolving field with significant advances shaped by practice-changing research. Three areas of ongoing controversy are (1) high... (Review)
Review
Breast surgical oncology is a rapidly evolving field with significant advances shaped by practice-changing research. Three areas of ongoing controversy are (1) high rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the United States despite uncertain benefit, (2) indications for and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and endocrine therapy (NET), and (3) staging and treatment of the axilla, particularly after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. We discuss the patient populations for whom CPM may or may not be beneficial, indications for NACT and NET, and the trend toward de-escalation of locoregional axillary treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Staging; Prophylactic Mastectomy
PubMed: 34774266
DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2021.06.002 -
Minerva Ginecologica Oct 2016Mastectomy rates have significantly increased over the last decades, likely due to the rising trend of risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) in the treatment and prevention... (Review)
Review
Mastectomy rates have significantly increased over the last decades, likely due to the rising trend of risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) in the treatment and prevention of breast cancer. Growing evidence suggests that aggressive risk-reducing surgical strategies are only justified in high-risk breast cancer situations. Notably, in this selected cohort of women, prophylactic mastectomies offer evident benefit for local and contralateral disease control, and may also provide a survival benefit. Nevertheless, the extent of the increasing frequency of this operation is not explained by the broadening of the medical indications alone. Here we analyze the current evidence regarding RRM, its clinical practice, and possible explanations for the rising phenomenon of aggressive surgical locoregional control strategies.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Risk Factors; Survival
PubMed: 26785281
DOI: No ID Found