Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy is Associated with a Survival Advantage in High-Risk Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in addition to therapeutic mastectomy (TM) is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 385 women with stage I or II breast cancer and a family history of breast cancer who underwent TM and CPM between 1971 and 1993 were evaluated and compared to 385 patients matched on age at diagnosis, tumor stage, nodal status, and year of diagnosis who underwent TM-only. Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) events and survival outcomes were compared.

Results

At a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 2 CBCs (0.5%) developed in the CPM cohort and 31 (8.1%) in the TM-only cohort, representing a 95% decreased risk of CBC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.01–0.22, P < 0.0001). One hundred twenty-eight women in the CPM group and 162 women in the TM-only group have died, resulting in 10-year overall survival estimates of 83 and 74%, respectively (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.86, P = 0.001). This difference in overall survival persisted in multivariate analysis (HR 0.77, P = 0.03). Disease-free survival (DFS) was better in the CPM cohort than the TM-only group (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53–0.82, P = 0.0002) and remained significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.67, P = 0.0005).

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, CPM was associated with decreased CBC event and improved overall survival and disease free survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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;25:5203–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1055–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peralta EA, Ellenhorn JD, Wagman LD, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy improves the outcome of selected patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;180:439–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoogerbrugge N, Bult P, de Widt-Levert LM, et al. High prevalence of premalignant lesions in prophylactically removed breasts from women at hereditary risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:41–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leunen K, Drijkoningen M, Neven P, et al. Prophylactic mastectomy in familial breast carcinoma. What do the pathologic findings learn us? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107:79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Halbert CH, et al. Predictors and outcomes of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;104:321–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldflam K, Hunt KK, Gershenwald JE, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Predictors of significant histologic findings. Cancer. 2004;101:1977–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pennisi VR, Capozzi A. Subcutaneous mastectomy data: a final statistical analysis of 1500 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1989;13:15–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Giuliano AE, Boolbol S, Degnim A, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology: position statement on prophylactic mastectomy. Approved by the Society of Surgical Oncology Executive Council, March 2007. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2425–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lostumbo L, Carbine N, Wallace J, Ezzo J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD002748.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, Menke-Pluymers M, et al. Survival and prognostic factors in BRCA1-associated breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:391–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brekelmans CT, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Seynaeve C, et al. Tumour characteristics, survival and prognostic factors of hereditary breast cancer from BRCA2-, BRCA1- and non-BRCA1/2 families as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:867–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bergstralh EJ, Kosanke JL. Computerized matching of cases to controls. Tech Rep. 1995;56.

  19. Boughey JC, Khakpour N, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Selective use of sentinel lymph node surgery during prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer. 2006;107:1440–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chabner E, Nixon A, Gelman R, et al. Family history and treatment outcome in young women after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2045–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Quan G, Pommier SJ, Pommier RF. Incidence and outcomes of contralateral breast cancers. Am J Surg. 2008;195:645–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Frost MH, Slezak JM, Tran NV, et al. Satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the significance of mastectomy type, reconstructive complications, and body appearance. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7849–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zion SM, Slezak JM, Sellers TA, et al. Reoperations after prophylactic mastectomy with or without implant reconstruction. Cancer. 2003;98:2152–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case–control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet. 2000;356(9245):1876–81.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by grants from the Department of Defense (DAMD17-94-J-4216) and the National Cancer Institute (U10 CA 37404 and R01 CA80181).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy C. Boughey MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boughey, J.C., Hoskin, T.L., Degnim, A.C. 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 17, 2702–2709 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1136-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1136-7

Keywords

Navigation