Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patients Undergoing Bilateral Mastectomy and Breast-Conserving Surgery Have the Lowest Levels of Regret: The WhySurg Study

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

Abstract

Background

The recent data on decision regret of patients undergoing breast cancer surgery are sparse.

Methods

An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to Love Research Army volunteers ages 18–70 years who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2009 to 2020. Decision regret scores were compared among patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), unilateral mastectomy (UM), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and BCS first (BCS followed by re-excision or mastectomy) and between procedures during different time periods. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for patient and tumor factors, was used to determine whether surgery type was associated with a regret score in the highest quartile range.

Results

The survey was completed by 2148 women, 1525 (71.0%) of whom reported their surgery choice and answered all questions on the regret scale. The mean age of the participants was 50 years, and the median year of surgery was 2014. The median decision regret score for all the patients was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 0–20) on a 100-point scale. The regret score of 342 participants (22.4%) was 25 or higher (BCS, 20.2%; BCS first, 31.9%; UM, 30.8%; BM, 15.4%; p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, BM was associated with less regret than UM (odds ratio [OR], 0.40 (range, 0.27–0.58); p < 0.001), BCS (OR, 0.56 (range, 0.38–0.83; p = 0.003), or BCS first (OR, 0.32; range, 0.21–0.49; p < 0.001). During the three periods analyzed (2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020), the BM and BCS patients had the lowest regret scores of all the surgical types.

Conclusions

Decision regret was low among the patients undergoing breast cancer surgery but lowest among the BM patients after adjustment for clinical and tumor factors including complications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmack N. Twenty-five year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Instit. 2011.

  4. Yao K, Liederbach E, Tang R, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an interim analysis and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1245/210434-014-3883-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Orzalesi L, Casella D, Santi C, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: surgical and oncological outcomes from a national multicenteric registry with 913 patients (1006 cases) over a six year period. Breast. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurian AW, Canchola AJ, Gomez SL, Clarke CA. Equivalent survival after nipple-sparing compared to non-nipple-sparing mastectomy: data from California, 1988–2013. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3992-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Geography and the debate over Medicare reform. Health Affairs. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.w2.96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry WT, Golshan M. Growing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy despite no improvement in long-term survival for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA0000000000001698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marmor S, Altman A, Mayleben WT, et al. The use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among elderly patients in the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05288-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen H, Zhang P, Zhang M, Wang M, Bai F, Wu K. Growing trends of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and reconstruction in young breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1091-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ager B, Butow P, Phillips KA, Porter D, CPM DA Advisory Group. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM): a systematic review of patient reported factors and psychological predictors influencing choice and satisfaction. Breast. 2016. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.005.

  14. Sando IC, Billig JI, Ambani SW, et al. An evaluation of the choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and patient concerns about recurrence in a reconstructed cohort. Ann Plast Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montgomery LL, Tran KN, Heelan MC, et al. Issues of regret in women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0542-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Martinez KA, Li Y, Resnicow K, Graff JJ, Hamilton AS, Hawley ST. Decision regret following treatment for localized breast cancer: is regret stable over time? Med Decision Making. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14564432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zeelenberg M. The use of crying over spilled milk: a note on the rationality and functionality of regret. Philos Psychol. 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/095150899105800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decision Making. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X03256005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Perez M, Menear M, Brehaut J, Legare F. Extent and predictors of decision regret about health care decision: a systematic review. Med Decision Making. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16636113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Advani PG, Lei X, Swanick CW, et al. Local therapy decision regret in older women with breast cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.01.089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lavery HJ, Levinson AW, Hobbs AR, et al. Baseline functional status may predict decisional regret following robotic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, Alderman AK. Correlates of patient satisfaction and provider trust after breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson A, Ronnekleiv-Kellly SM, Pawlik TM. Regret in surgical decision-making: a systematic review of patient and physician perspectives. World J Surg. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-3895-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4628-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett KG, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-year complication rates among common techniques for postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3116-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Miller ME, Czechura T, Martz B, Hall ME, et al. Operative risks associated with contralaterall prphylactic mastectomy: a single-institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3108-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, et al. Impact of reconstruction and reoperation on long-term patient-reported satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4053-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Baker JL, Dizon DS, Wenziger CM, et al. “Going flat”: after mastectomy: patient-reported outcomes by online survey. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09448-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5443-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5408-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. American Board of Medicine’s Choosing Wisely Campaign. Published 15 November 2017. Retrieved 19 April 2021 at http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/#keyword=breast.

  33. Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Services Res. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sio TT, Chang K, Jayakrishnan R, et al. Patient age is related to decision-making, treatment selection, and perceived quality of life in breast cancer survivors. World J Surg Oncol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Harcourt D, Russell C, Hughes J, White P, Nduka C, Smith R. Patient satisfaction in relation to nipple reconstruction: the importance of information provision. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the John Wayne Cancer Foundation, the Love Research Army, and the Dr. Susan Love Foundation for Breast Cancer Research.

Disclosure

There are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Amanda Deliere MD, Catherine Pesce MD, Katherine Kopkash MD & Katharine Yao MD

  2. Department of Surgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Deanna Attai MD

  3. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    David Victorson PhD

  4. Biostatistical Core, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Kristine Kuchta MS

  5. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Mark Sisco MD & Akhil Seth MD

Authors
  1. Amanda Deliere MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deanna Attai MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Victorson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kristine Kuchta MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Pesce MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katherine Kopkash MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Sisco MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Akhil Seth MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Katharine Yao MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine Yao MD.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deliere, A., Attai, D., Victorson, D. et al. Patients Undergoing Bilateral Mastectomy and Breast-Conserving Surgery Have the Lowest Levels of Regret: The WhySurg Study. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 5686–5697 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10452-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10452-w

Search

Navigation