Abstract
Background
Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have doubled over the last decade among women considered low risk for developing contralateral breast cancer. Despite the strong association between CPM and breast reconstruction, little is known about the clinical encounter between patients and plastic surgeons. A qualitative study was performed to understand how plastic surgeons describe their roles in the treatment decision-making process through their consultations with women who have unilateral early-stage breast cancer.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews with Ontario plastic surgeons were conducted. An inductive and interpretive thematic approach was initially used to analyze the data. The four principles of biomedical ethics then served as the conceptual lens to interpret the findings.
Results
The participants in this study were 18 plastic surgeons, and data saturation was reached. Four themes were identified: maintaining non-maleficence, supporting patient autonomy, delivering (un)equal health care, and providing care to enhance well-being. The ongoing push-pull between competing ethical principles was the overarching theme, specifically, striving to balance parallel responsibilities to do no harm while also respecting patients’ rights to make their own healthcare decisions.
Conclusions
In this patient-centric climate, it is important to acknowledge that patients may value outcomes such as achieving greater peace of mind above other clinical factors and are willing to incur additional risks to achieve these goals. Shared decision-making will help to reveal the rationale underlying each individual’s treatment choice, which in turn will allow physicians to appropriately weigh patient requests with the best available medical evidence when counseling women on decision-making for breast cancer care.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–9.
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.
Pesce C, Liederbach E, Wang C, Lapin B, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy provides no survival benefit in young women with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3231–9.
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.
Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(11):CD002748.
Barton MB, West CN, Liu IL, et al. Complications following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005:61–6.
Brewster AM, Parker PA. Current knowledge on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women with sporadic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16:935–41.
Tracy MS, Rosenberg SM, Dominici L, Partridge AH. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with breast cancer: trends, predictors, and areas for future research. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:447–52.
Buchanan PJ, Abdulghani M, Waljee JF, et al. An analysis of the decisions made for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:29–40.
Agarwal S, Kidwell KM, Kraft CT, et al. Defining the relationship between patient decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:661–70.
Covelli AM, Baxter NN, Fitch MI, McCready DR, Wright FC. “Taking control of cancer”: understanding women’s choice for mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:383–91.
Covelli AM, Baxter NN, Fitch MI, Wright FC. Increasing mastectomy rates: the effect of environmental factors on the choice for mastectomy: a comparative analysis between Canada and the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3173–84.
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.
Ashfaq A, McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, et al. Impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2934–40.
Greener JR, Bass SB, Lepore SJ. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a qualitative approach to exploring the decision-making process. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2018;36:145–58.
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.
Nahabedian MY. Managing the opposite breast: contralateral symmetry procedures. Cancer J. 2008;14:258–63.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27:237–46.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. Oxford University Press, New York. 2007.
Teven CM, Grant SB. Plastic surgery’s contributions to surgical ethics. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20:349–56.
Sterodimas A, Radwanski HN, Pitanguy I. Ethical issues in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:262–7.
Fu Y, Zhuang Z, Dewing M, Apple S, Chang H. Predictors for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer patients. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8:3748–64.
Sabel MS, Dal Cin S. Trends in media reports of celebrities’ breast cancer treatment decisions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2795–801.
Brown SL, Whiting D, Fielden HG, et al. Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally motivated patient requests. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178392.
Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, et al. Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: data on cpm outcomes and risks. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3100–5.
Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy consensus statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: additional considerations and a framework for shared decision making. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3106–11.
Wright FC, Look Hong NJ, Quan ML, et al. Indications for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a consensus statement using modified Delphi methodology. Ann Surg. 2018;267:271–9.
Lawrence DJ. The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. J Chiropr Human. 2007;14:34–40.
Bellavance E, Peppercorn J, Kronsberg S, et al. Surgeons’ perspectives of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2779–87.
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgment: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163–80.
Angelos P, Bedrosian I, Euhus DM, Herrmann VM, Katz SJ, Pusic A. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: challenging considerations for the surgeon. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3208–12.
Martinez KA, Kurian AW, Hawley ST, Jagsi R. How can we best respect patient autonomy in breast cancer treatment decisions? Breast Cancer Manage. 2015;4:53–64.
Yao K, Sisco M, Bedrosian I. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: current perspectives. Int J Women Health. 2016;8:213–23.
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.
Bellavance E, Kesmodel S. Decision-making in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing women’s choices for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery. Front Oncol. 2016;6:74.
Guth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, Weber WP, Lardi AM, Schmid SM. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a trend made in USA? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:296–301.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmocker, S., Gotlib Conn, L., Kennedy, E.D. et al. Striving to Do No Harm and Yet Respect Patient Autonomy: Plastic Surgeons’ Perspectives of the Consultation for Breast Reconstruction with Women Who Have Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 26, 3380–3388 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07541-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07541-2