Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 529–538

Synchronous elective contralateral mastectomy and immediate bilateral breast reconstruction in women with early-stage breast cancer

  • Jeffrey E. Gershenwald
  • Kelly K. Hunt
  • Stephen S. Kroll
  • Merrick I. Ross
  • Bonnie J. Baldwin
  • Barry W. Feig
  • Frederick C. Ames
  • Mark A. Schusterman
  • S. Eva Singletary
Original Articles

Abstract

Background: The role of elective contralateral mastectomy (ECM) in women with early-stage breast cancer who elect or require an ipsilateral mastectomy and desire immediate bilateral breast reconstruction (IBR) is an intellectual and emotional dilemma for both patient and physician. In an attempt to clarify the rationale for this approach, we reviewed our experience with ECM and IBR and evaluated operative morbidity, the incidence of occult contralateral breast cancer, and patterns of recurrence.

Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 155 patients with primary unilateral breast cancer (stage 0, I, or II) and negative findings on physical and mammographic examinations of the contralateral breast who underwent ipsilateral mastectomy and simultaneous ECM with IBR between 1987 and 1995.

Results: The median age of the patients was 46 years (range, 25 to 69 years). Clinical stage at diagnosis was stage 0, I, and II in 19.4%, 54.2%, and 26.4% of patients, respectively. Factors likely to influence the use of ECM were family history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives (30%), any family history of breast cancer (56%), difficulty anticipated in contralateral breast surveillance (48%), associated lobular carcinoma in situ (23%), multicentric primary tumor (28%), significant reconstructive issues (14%), and failure of mammographic identification of the primary tumor (16%). Skin-sparing mastectomies were performed in 81% of patients. Overall, 70% of patients underwent reconstruction using autogenous tissue transfer. Reoperations for suspected anastomotic thrombosis were performed in seven patients. Two patients experienced significant partial or complete flap loss. Histopathologic findings in the ECM specimen were as follows: benign, 80% of patients; atypical ductal hyperplasia, 12% of patients; lobular carcinoma in situ, 6.5% of patients; ductal carcinoma in situ, 2.7% of patients; and invasive carcinoma, 1.3% of patients. Eighteen patients (12%) had evidence of locoregional or distant recurrences, with a median follow-up of 3 years. In one patient (0.6%), invasive ductal carcinoma developed on the side of the elective mastectomy.

Conclusions: The use of ECM and IBR cannot be justified if the only oncologic criterion considered is the incidence of occult synchronous contralateral disease. However, in a highly selected population of young patients with a difficult clinical or mammographic examination and an increased lifetime risk of developing a second primary tumor, ECM and IBR is a safe approach.

Key Words

Breast cancer Elective contralateral mastectomy Bilateral reconstruction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Houn F, Helzlsouer KJ, Friedman NB, Stefanek ME. The practice of prophylactic mastectomy: a survey of Maryland surgeons.Am J Public Health 1995;85:801–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, Weeks JC. Decision analysis—effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women withBRCA1 orBRCA2 mutations.N Engl J Med 1997;336:1465–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crockford GP. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families.Am J Hum Genet 1993;52:678–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT, the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence inBRCA1-mutation carriers.Am J Hum Genet 1995;56:265–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, Narod SA, Goldgar DE, the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Risks of cancer inBRCA1-mutation carriers.Lancet 1994;343:692–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Temple WJ, Lindsay RL, Magi E, Urbanski SJ. Technical considerations for prophylactic mastectomy in patients at high risk for breast cancer.Am J Surg 1991;161:413–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holleb AI, Montgomery R, Farrow JH. The hazard of incomplete simple mastectomy.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1965;121:819–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ziegler LD, Kroll SS. Primary breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy.Am J Clin Oncol 1991;14:451–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong JH, Jackson CF, Swanson JS, Palmquist MA, Oyama AA, Miller SH, Fletcher WS. Analysis of the risk of reduction of prophylactic partial mastectomy in Sprague-Dawley rats in 7,12-dimethylbenzanthracene-induced breast cancer.Surgery 1986;99:67–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson H, Miller SH, Buck D, Demuth RJ, Fletcher WS, Buehler P. Effectiveness of prophylactic mastectomy in the prevention of breast tumors in C3H mice.Plast Reconstr Surg 1989;83:662–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartman L, Jenkins R, Schaid D, Yang P. Prophylactic mastectomy: preliminary retrospective cohort analysis.Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1997;88:168.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, Hellman S. Contralateral breast carcinoma: an assessment of risk and prognosis in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) patients with 20-year follow-up.Surgery 1989;106:904–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leis HP. Selective, elective, prophylactic contralateral mastectomy.Cancer 1971;28:956–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singletary SE. Management guidelines for the woman at increased risk for breast cancer. In: Jatoi I, ed.Breast cancer screening. Austin, TX: Landes Bioscience, 1997:179–89.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wanebo HJ, Senofsky GM, Fechner RE, Kaiser D, Lynn S, Paradies J. Bilateral breast cancer: risk reduction by contralateral biopsy.Ann Surg 1995;201:667–77.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simkovich AH, Sclafani LM, Masri M, Kinne DW. Role of contralateral breast biopsy in infiltrating lobular cancer.Surgery 1993;114:555–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson E, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Neugut AI. Survival of first and second primary breast cancer.Cancer 1993;71:172–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher ER, Fisher B, Sass R, Wickerham L. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol No. 4). XI. Bilateral breast cancer.Cancer 1984;54:3002–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singletary SE, Taylor SH, Guinee VF. Occurrence and prognosis of contralateral carcinoma of the breast.J Am Coll Surg 1994;178:390–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee JSY, Grant CS, Donohue JH, Crotty TB, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup DM. Arguments against routine contralateral mastectomy or undirected biopsy for invasive lobular breast cancer.Surgery 1995;118:640–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith BL, Bertagnolli M, Klein BB, Batter S, Chang M, Douville LM, Eberlein TJ. Evaluation of the contralateral breast. The role of biopsy at the time of treatment of primary breast cancer.Ann Surg 1992;216:17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baker RR, Kuhajda FP. The clinical management of a normal contralateral breast in patients with lobular breast cancer.Ann Surg 1989;210:444–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kroll SS, Miller MJ, Schusterman MA, Reece GP, Singletary SE, Ames F. Rationale for elective contralateral mastectomy with immediate bilateral reconstruction.Ann Surg Oncol 1994;1:457–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khouri RK, Ahn CY, Salzhauer MA, Scherff D, Shaw WW. Simultaneous bilateral breast reconstruction with the transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous free flap.Ann Surg 1997;226:25–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Miller MJ, et al. The free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: one center's experience with 211 consecutive cases.Ann Plast Surg 1994;32:234–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schusterman MA, Kroll SS, Weldon ME. Immediate breast reconstruction: why the free TRAM over the conventional TRAM flap?Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:255–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kroll SS, Baldwin B. A comparison of outcomes using three different methods of breast reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:455–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kroll SS, Schusterman MA, Tadjalli HE, Singletary SE, Ames FC. Risk of recurrence after treatment of early breast cancer with skin-sparing mastectomy.Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:193–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carlson GW, Bostwick J III, Styblo TM, Moore B, Bried JT, Murray DR, Wood WC. Skin-sparing mastectomy. Oncologic and reconstructive considerations.Ann Surg 1997;225:570–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singletary SE, Kroll SS. Skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.Adv Surg 1997;30:39–52.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carlson GW, Grossl N, Lewis MM, Temple JR, Styblo TM. Preservation of the inframammary fold: what are we leaving behind?Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:447–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cook LS, White E, Schwartz SM, McKnight B, Daling JR, Weiss NS. A population-based study of contralateral breast cancer following a first primary breast cancer (Washington, United States).Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:382–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baldwin BJ, Schusterman MA, Miller MJ, Kroll SS, Wang B-G. Bilateral breast reconstruction: conventional versus free TRAM.Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;93:1410–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gabriel SE, Woods JI, O'Fallon WM, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Melton LJ III. Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation.N Engl J Med 1997;336:677–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kroll SS, Coffey JA Jr, Winn RJ, Schusterman MA. A comparison of factors affecting aesthetic outcomes of TRAM flap breast reconstructions.Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:860–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Osteen RT. Reconstruction after mastectomy.Cancer 1995;76:2070–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elkowitz A, Colen S, Slavin S, Seibert J, Weinstein M, Shaw W. Various methods of breast reconstruction after mastectomy: an economic comparison.Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92:77–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kroll SS, Evans GRD, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Robb G, Baldwin BJ, Schusterman MA. Comparison of resource costs between implant-based and TRAM flap breast reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;97:364–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dean C, Chetty U, Forrest APM. Effects of immediate breast reconstruction on psychosocial morbidity after mastectomy.Lancet 1983;1:459–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moyer A, Salovey P. Psychosocial sequelae of breast cancer and its treatment.Ann Behav Med 1996;18:110–25.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hunt KK, Baldwin BJ, Strom EA, Ames FC, McNeese MD, Kroll SS, Singletary SE. Feasibility of postmastectomy radiation therapy after TRAM flap breast reconstruction.Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:377–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Harris RE, Lynch HT, Guirgis HA. Familial breast cancer: risk to the contralateral breast.J Natl Cancer Inst 1978;60:955–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Slattery ML, Kerber RA. A comprehensive evaluation of family history and breast cancer risk. The Utah population database.JAMA 1993;270:1563–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, et al. Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer.J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1074–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morrow M. Identification and management of the woman at increased risk for breast cancer development.Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994;31:53–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Page DL. The woman at high risk for breast cancer. Importance of hyperplasia.Surg Clin North Am 1996;76:221–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dupont WD, Page DL, Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease.N Engl J Med 1985;312:146–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Singletary SE. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: a 31-year experience at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.Breast Disease 1994;7:157–63.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stefanek ME, Helzlsouer KJ, Wilcox PM, Houn F. Predictors of and satisfaction with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy.Prev Med 1995;24:412–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Healey EA, Cook EF, Orav EJ, Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Harris JR. Contralateral breast cancer: clinical characteristics and impact on prognosis.J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1545–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Broet P, de la Rochefordiere A, Scholl SM, et al. Contralateral breast cancer: annual incidence and risk parameters.J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1578–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Awad AT, El-Husseini G, Anwar M, Abu-Nasr A, Anwar AA, Sakr M. Bilateral primary breast cancers: a clinicopathological study of the second primary.Int Surg 1996;81:57–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lesser ML, Rosen PP, Kinne DW. Multicentricity and bilaterality in invasive breast carcinoma.Surgery 1982;91:234–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Society of Surgical Oncology. SSO develops position statement on prophylactic mastectomies.Society of Surgical Oncology News 1993;1:10.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lopez MJ, Porter KA. The current role of prophylactic mastectomy.Surg Clin North Am 1996;76:231–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pressman PI. Controversies in cancer. When we would recommend prophylactic mastectomy.Primary Care Cancer 1988;Jan:11–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Surgical Oncology, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey E. Gershenwald
    • 1
  • Kelly K. Hunt
    • 1
  • Stephen S. Kroll
    • 2
  • Merrick I. Ross
    • 1
  • Bonnie J. Baldwin
    • 2
  • Barry W. Feig
    • 1
  • Frederick C. Ames
    • 1
  • Mark A. Schusterman
    • 2
  • S. Eva Singletary
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Surgical OncologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHouston
  2. 2.the Department of Plastic SurgeryThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHouston

Personalised recommendations