Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 383–391 | Cite as

‘Taking Control of Cancer’: Understanding Women’s Choice for Mastectomy

  • Andrea M. CovelliEmail author
  • Nancy N. Baxter
  • Margaret I. Fitch ( MScN, PhD)
  • David R. McCready
  • Frances C. Wright
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

Rates of both unilateral (UM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) have been increasing since 2003. Recent studies suggest that this increase may be due to women choosing UM and CPM because of fear. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study to identify those factors influencing a woman’s choice for more extensive surgery.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with breast cancer patients to examine the experiences, decision making, and choice of UM ± CPM for the treatment of ESBC. Purposive sampling identified suitable candidates for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) who underwent UM ± CPM. Interviews were guided by grounded theory methodology, and constant comparative analysis identified key concepts and themes.

Results

Data saturation was achieved after 29 interviews. ‘Taking control of cancer’ was the dominant theme. Fear of breast cancer was expressed at diagnosis and remained throughout decision making. Personal experiences of family or friends ‘living with cancer’ were the most influential source of information during the decision-making process. Fear translated into an overestimated risk of recurrence, contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and death. Despite surgeons discussing equivalent survival with BCT, UM ± CPM patients believed that by choosing UM ± CPM they would eliminate recurrence, CBC and live longer. By choosing more extensive surgery, women were actively trying to control cancer outcomes as more surgery was believed to offer greater survival.

Conclusions

Women seek UM and CPM to take control of cancer and manage their fear. It is important for surgeons to understand how personal experiences shape women’s choice for UM ± CPM to facilitate informed decision making.

Keywords

National Comprehensive Cancer Network National Comprehensive Cancer Network Contralateral Breast Cancer Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Experiential Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

With sincere thanks to Dr. M. Aarts, Dr. N. Down, Dr. R. George, and Dr. T. Gillis for their assistance in recruiting study participants. The authors would also like to thank all of the patient participants who offered their time and shared their experiences.

Disclosure

Dr. Covelli received a research fellowship from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation – Roche Physician Fellowship Program, and 1 year of salary support from the Clinical Investigator Program – Ontario Ministry of Health salary support program. She also received a travel grant to present work related to this research from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, as well as a Novartis Oncology Young Clinical Investigators Award (NOYCIA) and an ASCO Merit Award for work presented related to this research. The Surgeon Scientist Training Program provided indirect financial support to Dr. Covelli through programs delivered to surgeon scientists in training at the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto. Dr. Baxter holds the Cancer Care Ontario Health Services Research Chair. Dr. McCready receives research support from the Gattuso Chair in Breast Surgical Oncology at Princess Margaret Hospital.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. June 18–21 1990. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 NIH Consensus Development Conference. Cancer. 1999;86:628–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaudette LA, Goa RN, Spence A, Shi F, Joahnesen H, et al. Declining use of mastectomy for invasive breast cancer in Canada, 1981–2000. Can J Public Health. 2004;95:336–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Koning HJ, van Dongen JA, van der Maas PJ. Changes in use of breast-conserving therapy in years 1978–2000. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:1165–70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harries SA, Lawrence RN, Scrivener R, Fieldman NR, Kissin MW. A survey of the management of breast cancer in England and Wales. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996;78:197–202.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neuburger J, Macneill F, Jeevan R, et al. Trends in the use of bilateral mastectomy in England from 2002 to 2011: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003179.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones NB, Wilson J, Kotur L, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: an increasing trend at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2691–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, et al. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–09.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, et al. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18:318–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragun AE, Pan J, Riley EC, et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:375–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, et al. Trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 1998–2007. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2554–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gomez SL, Lichtensztajn D, Kurian AW, et al. Increasing mastectomy rates for early-stage breast cancer? Population-based trends from California. J Clin Oncol. 2010;26:e155–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M, et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. In: Dabbs K, Porter G, Wai E, eds. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/BreastCancer_7-8_9-10_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2014.
  15. 15.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer risk reduction. Version 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2014.
  16. 16.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: high risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2014.
  17. 17.
    King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2158–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–88.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5640–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benedict S, Cole DJ, Baron L, et al. Factors influencing choice between mastectomy and lumpectomy for women in the Carolinas. J Surg Oncol. 2001;76:6–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nekhlyudov L, Bower M, Herrinton LJ, et al. Women’s decision-making roles regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005;35:55–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302:1551–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, et al. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg. Epub 21 May 2014.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2014.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling: merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:623–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115–17.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCann TV, Clarke E. Grounded theory in nursing research. Part 1: methodology. Nurse Res. 2002;11:7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ. 2008;337:a567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guest G. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuzel A. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, eds. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage; 1992. pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Charmaz K. Grounded theory in the 21st century. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME, et al. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:373–81.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Holtzman NA, et al. Decoding informed consent: insights from women regarding breast cancer susceptibility testing. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997;27:28–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kenen R, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R. We are talking, but are they listening? Communication patterns in families with a history of breast/ovarian cancer. Psychooncology. 2004;13:335–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    d’Agincourt-Canning L. The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns. 2005;14:55–69.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Risky feelings: why a 6 % risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(Suppl):S87–93.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients’ decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Borgida E, Nisbett RE. The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. J Appl Psychol. 1977;7:258–71.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petrie KJ, Weinman J. Patients’ perceptions of their illness. Curr Direct Psych Sci. 2012;21:60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, et al. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:631–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Gruen RJ, et al. Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50:571–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pearlin LI, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav. 1978;19:2–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Henselmans I, Sanderman R, Helgeson VS, et al. Personal control over the cure of breast cancer: adaptiveness, underlying beliefs and correlates. Psychooncology. 2010;19:525–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tomich PL, Helgeson VS. Cognitive adaptation theory and breast cancer recurrence: are there limits? J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74:980–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:(11):CD002748.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, et al. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1564–9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Forbes JF, Cuzick J, Buzdar A, Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists’ Group, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:45–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B. Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:1038–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, et al. Factors influencing prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma: analysis of 767 T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2090–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Osman F, Saleh F, Jackson TD, et al. Increased postoperative complications in bilateral mastectomy patients compared to unilateral mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3212–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Miller ME, Czechura T, Martz B, et al. Operative risks associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a single institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4113–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Goldflam K, Hunt KK, Gershenwald JE, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Predictors of significant histologic findings. Cancer. 2004;101:1977–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Brummett CM. Chronic pain following breast surgery. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag. 2011;15:124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gartner R, Jensen M-B, Nielsen J, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with persistent pain following breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2009;302:1985–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tasmuth T, Von Smitten K, Hietanen P, et al. Pain and other symptoms after different treatment modalities of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1995;6:453–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Altschuler A, Nekhlyudov L, Rolnick SJ, et al. Positive, negative, and disparate: women’s differing long-term psychosocial experiences of bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast J. 2008;14:25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Frost MH, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: long-term consistency of satisfaction and adverse effects and the significance of informed decision-making, quality of life, and personality traits. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3110–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, et al. Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shaffer VA, Tomek S, Hulsey L. The effect of narrative information in a publicly available patient decision aid for early-stage breast cancer. Health Commun. 2014;29:64–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: effects on treatment choices. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bekker HL, Winterbottom AE, Butow P, et al. Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? A critical review of theory and evidence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea M. Covelli
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Nancy N. Baxter
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Margaret I. Fitch ( MScN, PhD)
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • David R. McCready
    • 1
    • 6
  • Frances C. Wright
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of General SurgerySunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Surgery and Li Ka Shing Knowledge InstituteSt Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Odette Cancer Centre & Sunnybrook Research InstituteSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Bloomberg Faculty of NursingUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of Surgical OncologyPrincess Margaret HospitalTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Department of Surgery & Sunnybrook Research InstituteSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations