Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 3100–3105 | Cite as

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Data on CPM Outcomes and Risks

  • Judy C. Boughey
  • Deanna J. Attai
  • Steven L. Chen
  • Hiram S. Cody
  • Jill R. Dietz
  • Sheldon M. Feldman
  • Caprice C. Greenberg
  • Rena B. Kass
  • Jeffrey Landercasper
  • Valerie Lemaine
  • Fiona MacNeill
  • David H. Song
  • Alicia C. Staley
  • Lee G. Wilke
  • Shawna C. Willey
  • Katharine A. Yao
  • Julie A. Margenthaler
Open Access
Breast Oncology

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) endorses the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Choosing Wisely campaign statement: “Don’t routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer.”1 However, women with a newly diagnosed unilateral breast cancer are increasingly opting for bilateral mastectomy. This has been seen in patients who are candidates for breast conservation who elect mastectomy as well as those requiring mastectomy for their index breast cancer.2 National rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the United States have been increasing and this trend is continuing.24

There has been significant controversy surrounding this topic, and it has received attention from national societies as well as the media. Therefore, the ASBrS convened a panel of experts to develop a consensus statement on CPM. Initial literature review was performed and exchanged electronically by the panel, followed by an in-person meeting of the consensus group and polling of the membership of the ASBrS at the 2016 annual meeting. The consensus statement consists of two parts. This paper, part 1, outlines the data on the impact of CPM on cancer and noncancer outcomes, including risks of CPM and when CPM should be considered or discouraged. Part 2 outlines whether CPM utilization should be a quality measure, role of sentinel node biopsy for CPM, perspectives on CPM from patients and from providers in other countries, and counseling considerations for patients desiring CPM and includes a discussion template for providers to use with patients regarding CPM. The ASBrS Executive Committee reviewed and approved the statement. This consensus statement was developed to guide patient and physician discussion and should not affect insurance coverage.

The consensus group agreed that CPM should be discouraged for an average-risk woman with unilateral breast cancer. However, patient’s values, goals, and preferences should be included to optimize shared decision making when discussing CPM. The final decision whether or not to proceed with CPM is a result of the balance between benefits and risks of CPM and patient preference.

Breast Conservation or Mastectomy

The consensus group recommends consideration of breast conservation for all patients who are appropriate candidates. Breast conservation is equivalent to mastectomy in survival outcome and has been the preferred treatment for early-stage breast cancer since the National Cancer Institute statement in 1991.5 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy are highly successful in providing tumor size reduction to increase breast conservation rates, and oncoplastic approaches allow resection of larger tumors with reshaping and provide an excellent cosmetic outcome.69 Increase in use of breast conservation can decrease CPM rates. Complication rates have been shown to be lower with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant radiation than with mastectomy and reconstruction.10

Summary

The panel recommends advocating for breast conservation for all appropriately eligible patients and considering neoadjuvant systemic therapy and/or oncoplastic approaches to facilitate breast conservation where possible.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

For women who elect or require mastectomy for management of their index breast cancer, the option of removing the contralateral breast is often discussed. Multiple factors should be considered including family history, patient age, comorbidities, and tumor prognosis, as well as the initial plan for surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy. The surgical consultation should include a detailed discussion of local treatment options, the risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and distant cancer recurrence, the options for managing a CBC, and a clear recommendation for or against CPM. CPM is never an emergency and is never mandatory; even for patients at the highest risk of CBC, in the absence of disease, close surveillance is always a reasonable alternative to surgery.

CPM and Impact on Cancer Outcomes

Risk of CBC and Reduction of CBC with CPM

Among women with breast cancer, the absolute risk of developing a CBC exceeds that of the general population and is approximately 0.6 % per year in historic series.11 Because systemic adjuvant chemotherapy reduces this risk by about 20 %, tamoxifen by about 50 %, and aromatase inhibitors by about 60 %, the contemporary risk of developing a CBC is likely lower at 0.2–0.5 % per year for those undergoing adjuvant therapies.12 Survivorship bias must be taken into account when looking at factors associated with CBC because the only patients who develop a CBC are those who survive their first primary cancer.

Known factors contributing to the risk of developing CBC include individual patient factors (family history, gene mutation status, patient age, etc.) as well as treatment related to the index breast cancer (use of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, etc.). For known BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, studies have shown a 30–40 % risk of CBC at 10 years, and the risk appears to continue beyond 10 years.13 The CBC risk for carriers of other genes such as CHEK2, p53, PALB2, ATM, and NBN is less well studied, and at this time there is insufficient evidence to support an increased CBC risk for these mutations. Early studies of CHEK2 mutation carriers showed an increased risk for CBC, but future studies are warranted to verify this finding.14,15 Patients at higher risk for breast cancer, such as those who have undergone mantle radiation for Hodgkin lymphoma, may be at increased risk for CBC, but few studies have verified this.16 For patients with a significant family history with no proven gene mutation or in whom genetic testing was not done, the risk of CBC varies by number and degree of the relative(s) affected by breast cancer and the age of the patient. In the WECARE study, the 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer for a 30-year-old woman with a first-degree relative is 14.7 % compared to a 50-year-old woman, whose risk is 6.7 % at 10 years.17 CBC risk varies by the hormone receptor status of the primary tumor. In the overview analysis, the risk of CBC was 0.4 % per year for estrogen receptor–positive patients and 0.5 % per year for estrogen receptor-negative patients.18 A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) study performed nearly 10 years ago showed that CBC risk has been decreasing 3 % per year since 1985 due in part to increased use of hormone therapy.19 Annual risks of CBC are highest in patients younger than 30 years and patients with multiple affected first- and second-degree relatives (annual risk 0.4–1.3 %).

There is strong evidence that CPM reduces the relative risk of cancer in the contralateral breast by 90 to 95 %; however, breast cancer risk is not completely eliminated with CPM. The absolute risk of developing cancer on that side after CPM ranges from 0 to 1.5 %.2025

Summary

Risk of CBC for average-risk women with breast cancer is 0.1 to 0.6 % per year. CBC risk is higher for women diagnosed at a young age, those with a strong family history, and BRCA carriers.

Impact of CPM on Overall Survival and Disease-Free Survival

There are no prospective studies on the impact of CPM on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In view of this, all published studies comparing OS and DFS for woman undergoing CPM with those not undergoing CPM have to be interpreted with caution, as they are retrospective and may contain known and unknown biases. Multiple retrospective studies have compared OS and DFS in women undergoing CPM compared to those not undergoing CPM. Some have shown a DFS benefit21,2429 and some have shown an OS benefit to CPM.21,2730 However, these studies cannot establish a causal link between CPM and survival. The Cochrane Database, a meta-analysis, and other studies indicate no difference in OS or breast cancer–specific survival and cite selection bias as the cause of superior outcomes in the studies that demonstrated improvement in survival.22,31,32 A recent SEER analysis examined CPM’s effect not only on all-cause and breast cancer mortality but also on noncancer mortality.33 This study showed a greater reduction in noncancer mortality for CPM than for all-cause or breast cancer mortality and illustrates how selection bias likely accounts for the survival benefit reported from CPM.

For those patients at the highest CBC risk, such as BRCA carriers, retrospective studies have shown that patients who underwent CPM had better OS than BRCA carriers who did not undergo CPM.20,34,35 Among Hodgkin lymphoma survivors, the increased risk of breast cancer is well documented, but too few patients have developed contralateral disease to make a reliable estimate of either CBC risk or CPM benefit.36,37

Summary

CPM does not appear to be associated with a survival benefit, with the possible exception of BRCA carriers.

CPM’s Impact on Noncancer Outcomes

Surgical Risks of CPM (with/without Reconstruction)

Complications can be divided into categories based on time (early, intermediate, late) and type (surgical, oncologic, reconstructive). Early complications are dominated by surgical site issues such as tissue/skin flap necrosis, infection, bleeding, and standard surgical complications such as deep-vein thrombosis and anesthesia complications. Because reconstructive complications on the CPM side would not have occurred without the CPM, it is reasonable to consider the complications from the mastectomy and also any reconstructive complications (implant loss, flap loss, unanticipated revisions, etc.) from both the immediate procedure and subsequent procedures required for completion of the reconstruction. Taking these together, complications are estimated to occur in 40–64 % over the entire course of a reconstruction, with an estimate of 52 % of patients having at least one unanticipated surgery in one series.38

CPM has been shown to have double the complication rate compared to unilateral mastectomy, regardless of whether reconstruction is performed or not, and complications occur almost equally on the affected and prophylactic sides.3942 CPM increases complications that require return to the operating room, and removal of an implant or significant skin necrosis, as well as more minor complications such as cellulitis, small areas of skin necrosis, or hematomas that do not require a return to the operating room.39 Potential comorbidities that may increase the likelihood of complications (such as cardiac/pulmonary comorbidities, obesity, diabetes, smoking, use of steroids or anticoagulants) should be considered when considering the possible harms of CPM and any potential benefits.

Summary

CPM doubles the risk of surgical complications.

Oncologic Risks of CPM

CPM may negatively affect oncologic outcomes for patients who were never destined to develop a CBC. Surgical complications may delay the onset of adjuvant therapy, or may encourage patients to avoid therapy that would otherwise be recommended, such as radiotherapy. One study has shown that patients undergoing CPM had longer delays to adjuvant therapy then those patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy.43

CPM and Aesthetic Outcome

Symmetry is a significant driver for CPM, especially for women with ptotic or large breasts. Satisfaction with breast appearance has been shown to be higher with bilateral mastectomy and implant reconstruction compared to unilateral mastectomy with implant reconstruction.44 Regardless of technique, reconstructing both sides at the same time allows for more degrees of freedom and less constraints in reconstructive options, perhaps resulting in better outcomes. When autologous choices are made for reconstruction, CPM also allows for the use of the entire abdominal donor site as opposed to discarding half when a unilateral reconstruction is performed. With advances in reconstructive surgical techniques and options, CPM in patients undergoing mastectomy for their primary tumor may improve symmetry; however, it is important to educate women that symmetry procedures are available that do not require mastectomy and can provide symmetry with potentially fewer surgical and wound complications and preserve sensation.

CPM has been associated with negative outcomes on quality of life associated with reconstructive surgery. Survey studies of patients who have undergone reconstruction have shown that up to 20–30 % of patients report that outcomes from their reconstruction such as the cosmetic appearance, numbness or tingling, and sexuality were worse than expected.4548 Additionally, a similar proportion of patients report that the number of operations needed to complete their reconstruction was more than expected, and the need for unplanned reoperations was associated with less satisfaction with the procedure.45,49 Patients who undergo CPM do rate their satisfaction with their breast appearance higher with reconstruction than those who do not undergo CPM, but physical effects such as pain and sexuality were no different between CPM and non-CPM patients.44,50 These factors, along with patient desire to improve overall aesthetic appearance of their reconstruction, should be taken into account when discussing the option of CPM and reconstruction with patients.

Summary

Bilateral reconstruction may provide improved cosmetic outcome.

When CPM Should Be Considered or Discouraged

Average-risk women with unilateral breast cancer do not derive any oncologic benefit from CPM, and thus CPM should be discouraged.

From a risk perspective, CPM should be considered primarily for women at the highest risk for CBC, specifically those women with (1) deleterious mutations of BRCA1/2, (2) a greater than 25 % lifetime risk of breast cancer primarily due to family history in the absence of deleterious mutations, or (3) a history of mantle radiation (typically for Hodgkin lymphoma) before age 30.36,37

For patients with a strong family history without a known genetic mutation and patients with other breast cancer risk genes such as CHEK2, PALB2, and CDH1, there is insufficient evidence regarding CBC risk to recommend for or against CPM in these patients, and therefore CPM can be considered.

Symmetry is a significant driver for CPM, especially for those with ptotic or large breasts and unilateral breast malignancy. Plastic surgical consultation is highly recommended whenever mastectomy is required or chosen for management of the index cancer and the patient is interested in reconstruction. This consultation should involve a detailed discussion about what each reconstructive procedure involves, recovery time, the need for additional operations, and the risks associated with the procedure.

Patients with more advanced disease, when timing of adjuvant oncologic therapy is critical and risk of recurrence from the primary tumor greatly outweighs potential risk of CBC, should not undergo CPM. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as significant cardiac or pulmonary disease, chronic anticoagulation or steroid use, poorly controlled diabetes, poor wound healing, and liver failure should be discouraged from CPM because the surgical risks of the procedure likely outweigh any benefits.

Conclusions

CPM should be considered for those at significant risk of CBC
  • Documented BRCA1/2 carrier.

  • Strong family history, but patient has not undergone genetic testing.

  • History of mantle chest radiation before age 30 years.

CPM can be considered for those at lower risk of CBC
  • Gene carrier of non-BRCA gene (e.g., CHEK-2, PALB2, p53, CDH1).

  • Strong family history, patient BRCA negative, no known BRCA family member.

CPM may be considered for other reasons
  • To limit contralateral breast surveillance (dense breasts, failed surveillance, recall fatigue).

  • To improve reconstructed breast symmetry.

  • To manage risk aversion.

  • To manage extreme anxiety. (This may be better managed through psychological support strategies.)

CPM should be discouraged
  • Average-risk woman with unilateral breast cancer.

  • Women with advanced index cancer (e.g., inflammatory breast cancer, T4 or N3 disease, stage IV disease).

  • Women at high risk for surgical complications (e.g., patients with comorbidities: obesity, smoker, diabetes).

  • Woman tested BRCA negative with a family of BRCA-positive carriers.

  • Male breast cancer, including BRCA carriers.

Notes

DISCLOSURE

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    American Board of Medicine. Choosing Wisely. http://www.choosingwisely.org/.
  2. 2.
    Brown D, Shao S, Jatoi I, Shriver CD, Zhu K. Trends in use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy by racial/ethnic group and ER/PR status among patients with breast cancer: a SEER population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;42:24–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pesce CE, Liederbach E, Czechura T, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Changing surgical trends in young patients with early stage breast cancer, 2003 to 2010: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:19–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steiner CA, Weiss AJ, Barrett ML, Fingar KR, Davis PH. Trends in bilateral and unilateral mastectomies in hospital inpatient and ambulatory settings, 2005–2013. Rockville, MD: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. 2015. Statistical Brief 201. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb201-Mastectomies-Inpatient-Outpatient.pdf
  5. 5.
    NIH Consensus Conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golshan M, Cirrincione CT, Sikov WM, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II–III triple negative breast cancer on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery and breast conservation rates: surgical results from CALGB 40603 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;262:434–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Mougalian S, Horowitz NR, Pasztai L, Chagpar AB, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer increases the rate of breast conservation: results from the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:1063–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silverstein MJ, Savalia N, Khan S, Ryan J. Extreme oncoplasty: breast conservation for patients who need mastectomy. Breast J. 2015;21:52–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savalia NB, Silverstein MJ. Oncoplastic breast reconstruction: patient selection and surgical techniques. J Surg Oncol. 2016;113:875–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith B, Jiang J, Shih YC, et al. Complication and economic burden of local therapy options for early breast cancer (abstract). Paper presented at: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B. Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:1038–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, et al. Contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2328–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weischer M, Nordestgaard BG, Pharoah P, et al. CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity in women with breast cancer associated with early death, breast cancer–specific death, and increased risk of a second breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4308–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kriege M, Hollestelle A, Jager A, et al. Survival and contralateral breast cancer in CHEK2 1100delC breast cancer patients: impact of adjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:1004–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elkin EB, Klem ML, Gonzales AM, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer in women with and without a history of radiation for Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a multi-institutional, matched cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2466–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reiner AS, John EM, Brooks JD, et al. Risk of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer in noncarriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with a family history of breast cancer: a report from the Women’s Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:433–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, Rosenberg PS, Anderson WF. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1564–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Ghadirian P, et al. Contralateral mastectomy and survival after breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g226.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herrinton LJ, Barlow WE, Yu O, et al. Efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer: a Cancer Research Network project. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4275–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Sprundel TC, Schmidt MK, Rookus MA, et al. Risk reduction of contralateral breast cancer and survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2005;93:287–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDonnell SK, Schaid DJ, Myers JL, et al. Efficacy of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a personal and family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3938–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Degnim AC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2702–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peralta EA, Ellenhorn JD, Wagman LD, Dagis A, Andersen JS, Chu DZ. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy improves the outcome of selected patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;180:439–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bedrosian I, Hu CY, Chang GJ. Population-based study of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and survival outcomes of breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:401–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brewster AM, Bedrosian I, Parker PA, et al. Association between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast cancer outcomes by hormone receptor status. Cancer. 2012;118:5637–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kruper L, Kauffmann RM, Smith DD, Nelson RA. Survival analysis of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a question of selection bias. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3448–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee JS, 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;118:640–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, Winchester DP. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD002748.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fayanju OM, Stoll CR, Fowler S, Colditz GA, Margenthaler JA. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;260:1000–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jatoi I, Parsons HM. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and its association with reduced mortality: evidence for selection bias. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148:389–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM, et al. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:668–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Evans DG, Ingham SL, Baildam A, Ross GL, Lalloo F, Buchan I, et al. Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:135–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swerdlow AJ, Cooke R, Bates A, et al. Breast cancer risk after supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma in England and Wales: a National Cohort Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2745–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schaapveld M, Aleman BM, van Eggermond AM, et al. Second cancer risk up to 40 years after treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2499–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zion SM, Slezak JM, Sellers TA, et al. Reoperations after prophylactic mastectomy with or without implant reconstruction. Cancer. 2003;98:2152–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Silva AK, Lapin B, Yao KA, Song DH, Sisco M. The effect of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on perioperative complications in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction: a NSQIP analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Osman F, Saleh F, Jackson TD, Corrigan MA, Cil T. Increased postoperative complications in bilateral mastectomy patients compared to unilateral mastectomy: an analysis of the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3212–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Crosby MA, Garvey PB, Selber JC, et al. Reconstructive outcomes in patients undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1025–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sharpe SM, Liederbach E, Czechura T, Pesce C, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Impact of bilateral versus unilateral mastectomy on short term outcomes and adjuvant therapy, 2003–2010: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2920–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koslow S, Pharmer LA, Scott AM, Stempel M, Morrow M, Pusic AL, et al. Long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and implant reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3422–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME, et al. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:373–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Frost MH, Schaid DJ, Sellers TA, et al. Long-term satisfaction and psychological and social function following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA. 2000;284:319–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Frost MH, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Johnson JL, Boughey JC. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, Johnson JL, Jacobson SR, Degnim AC, et al. Impact of reconstruction and reoperation on long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:401–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hwang ES, Locklear TD, Rushing CN, Samsa G, Abernethy AP, Hyslop T, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1518–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy C. Boughey
    • 1
  • Deanna J. Attai
    • 2
  • Steven L. Chen
    • 3
  • Hiram S. Cody
    • 4
  • Jill R. Dietz
    • 5
  • Sheldon M. Feldman
    • 6
  • Caprice C. Greenberg
    • 7
  • Rena B. Kass
    • 8
  • Jeffrey Landercasper
    • 9
  • Valerie Lemaine
    • 1
  • Fiona MacNeill
    • 10
  • David H. Song
    • 11
  • Alicia C. Staley
    • 12
  • Lee G. Wilke
    • 7
  • Shawna C. Willey
    • 13
  • Katharine A. Yao
    • 14
  • Julie A. Margenthaler
    • 15
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLAUCLA Health Burbank Breast CareBurbankUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryOasisMDSan DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, Case Western Reserve School of MedicineSeidman Cancer CenterClevelandUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Department of SurgeryUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Surgery, College of MedicineThe Pennsylvania State UniversityHersheyUSA
  9. 9.Department of SurgeryGundersen Health SystemLacrosseUSA
  10. 10.Department of SurgeryRoyal Marsden HospitalLondonUK
  11. 11.Department of SurgeryUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  12. 12.Akari HealthcareCharlestonUSA
  13. 13.Department of SurgeryMedstar Georgetown University HospitalWashingtonUSA
  14. 14.Department of SurgeryNorthShore University Health SystemEvanstonUSA
  15. 15.Department of Surgery, Center for Advanced MedicineBreast Health CenterSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations