Nationwide Trends in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomies: An Analysis of 55,060 Unilateral Breast Cancer Patients.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
04
04
2022
accepted:
08
04
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
2
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effects of recent initiatives to better educate unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have not been fully examined. The purpose of this study was to update and examine recent annual CPM trends by evaluating 2015-2020 data from a large administrative claims database. We also sought to determine if there were any variations in trends among different age groups and reconstructive modalities. Patients diagnosed with UBC between 2015 and 2019 were identified in Optum Clinformatics DataMart. Patients were then categorized by age group, whether they underwent CPM, whether they underwent breast reconstruction (BR), timing of any BR (immediate or delayed), and type of BR (implant-based or autologous). Of 55,060 patients who were diagnosed with UBC, 2625 (4.8%) underwent CPM. After a slight decline from 2015 to 2016, the CPM rate among UBC patients increased significantly from 3.4% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2019. Although this upward trend remained consistent across all age groups examined, younger UBC patients represented a significantly higher and faster growing percentage of those undergoing CPM. BR rates among those who underwent CPM also increased between 2015 and 2019, with implant-based and immediate BR becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR. CPM rates continued to rise between 2016 and 2019 and younger women represented a substantially higher and faster growing percentage of UBC patients undergoing CPM than older women. In addition, implant-based and immediate BR are becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The effects of recent initiatives to better educate unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have not been fully examined. The purpose of this study was to update and examine recent annual CPM trends by evaluating 2015-2020 data from a large administrative claims database. We also sought to determine if there were any variations in trends among different age groups and reconstructive modalities.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Patients diagnosed with UBC between 2015 and 2019 were identified in Optum Clinformatics DataMart. Patients were then categorized by age group, whether they underwent CPM, whether they underwent breast reconstruction (BR), timing of any BR (immediate or delayed), and type of BR (implant-based or autologous).
Results
UNASSIGNED
Of 55,060 patients who were diagnosed with UBC, 2625 (4.8%) underwent CPM. After a slight decline from 2015 to 2016, the CPM rate among UBC patients increased significantly from 3.4% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2019. Although this upward trend remained consistent across all age groups examined, younger UBC patients represented a significantly higher and faster growing percentage of those undergoing CPM. BR rates among those who underwent CPM also increased between 2015 and 2019, with implant-based and immediate BR becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
CPM rates continued to rise between 2016 and 2019 and younger women represented a substantially higher and faster growing percentage of UBC patients undergoing CPM than older women. In addition, implant-based and immediate BR are becoming more heavily favored over autologous and delayed BR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35646492
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004344
pmc: PMC9132527
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e4344Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Am Fam Physician. 2021 Aug 1;104(2):171-178
pubmed: 34383430
Gland Surg. 2017 Dec;6(6):682-688
pubmed: 29302486
Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Jul 1;87(1s Suppl 1):S2-S6
pubmed: 33833183
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Nov;69(6):438-451
pubmed: 31577379
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 May;123(5):1408-1413
pubmed: 19407610
Surgery. 2020 Nov;168(5):859-867
pubmed: 32819721
JAMA Surg. 2020 Aug 1;155(8):759-770
pubmed: 32492121
Cancer. 2013 Jul 1;119(13):2462-8
pubmed: 23585144
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5203-9
pubmed: 17954711
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Aug 19;8(8):e3060
pubmed: 32983804
JAMA. 2013 Aug 28;310(8):793-4
pubmed: 23907558
Breast J. 2013 Sep-Oct;19(5):463-9
pubmed: 23758582
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jul;144(1):1-9
pubmed: 31246789
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 20;29(12):1564-9
pubmed: 21402610
JAMA Surg. 2015 Jan;150(1):9-16
pubmed: 25408966
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jul;138(1):29-40
pubmed: 27348637
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 May;141(5):1094-1102
pubmed: 29659447
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Nov;140(5S Advances in Breast Reconstruction):7S-13S
pubmed: 29064917
Ann Surg. 2017 Mar;265(3):581-589
pubmed: 28169929
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(10):3100-5
pubmed: 27469117
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Feb;24(2):375-397
pubmed: 27933411
J Surg Res. 2021 Jun;262:71-84
pubmed: 33548676
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;21(10):3297-303
pubmed: 25047470
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Sep;128(3):803-804
pubmed: 21866006
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2;11(1):2847
pubmed: 33531640
J Surg Oncol. 2016 Jun;113(8):891-4
pubmed: 26876921
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Mar;135(3):661-670
pubmed: 25719688
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):15-23
pubmed: 23271515
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Aug;132(2):201e-209e
pubmed: 23897347
Am J Surg. 2019 Jul;218(1):170-174
pubmed: 30554666
Epidemiology. 2003 Sep;14(5):552-8
pubmed: 14501270