Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision-Making: The Partners' Perspective.
Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
Decision-making
Experience
Partner
Role
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
26
04
2023
accepted:
14
07
2023
medline:
12
9
2023
pubmed:
13
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to rise despite no improvement in survival, an increased risk of surgical complications, and negative effects on quality of life. This study explored the experiences of the partners of women who undergo CPM. This study was part of an investigation into the factors motivating women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer and low genetic risk to opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Participating women were asked for permission to invite their partners to take part in interviews. In-depth interviews with partners were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. A thematic analysis of the data was performed RESULTS: Of 35 partners, all men, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Most perceived their role to be strong and logical. Some hoped their wives would choose a bilateral mastectomy. All felt strongly that the final decision was up to their partners. The partners often framed the decision for CPM as one of life or death. Thus, any aesthetic effects were unimportant by comparison. The male partners had difficulty grasping the physical and emotional changes inherent in mastectomy, which made communicating about sexuality and intimacy very challenging for the couples. In the early recovery period, some noted the stress of managing home life. The experiences of the male partners provide insight into how couples navigate complex treatment decision-making, both together and separately. There may be a benefit to including partners in pre- and post-surgical counseling to mitigate miscommunication regarding the expected oncologic and emotional outcomes related to CPM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) continues to rise despite no improvement in survival, an increased risk of surgical complications, and negative effects on quality of life. This study explored the experiences of the partners of women who undergo CPM.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was part of an investigation into the factors motivating women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer and low genetic risk to opt for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Participating women were asked for permission to invite their partners to take part in interviews. In-depth interviews with partners were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. A thematic analysis of the data was performed RESULTS: Of 35 partners, all men, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Most perceived their role to be strong and logical. Some hoped their wives would choose a bilateral mastectomy. All felt strongly that the final decision was up to their partners. The partners often framed the decision for CPM as one of life or death. Thus, any aesthetic effects were unimportant by comparison. The male partners had difficulty grasping the physical and emotional changes inherent in mastectomy, which made communicating about sexuality and intimacy very challenging for the couples. In the early recovery period, some noted the stress of managing home life.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The experiences of the male partners provide insight into how couples navigate complex treatment decision-making, both together and separately. There may be a benefit to including partners in pre- and post-surgical counseling to mitigate miscommunication regarding the expected oncologic and emotional outcomes related to CPM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37573282
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14022-0
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-14022-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6268-6274Informations de copyright
© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
(NCCN) NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer Version 4.2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf . Accessed 6 Jan 2023.
Sabel MS, Kraft CT, Griffith KA, et al. Differences between breast conservation-eligible patients and unilateral mastectomy patients in choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Breast J. 2016;22:607–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12648 .
doi: 10.1111/tbj.12648
pubmed: 27564723
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. 2017;265:581–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001698 .
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001698
pubmed: 28169929
Baskin AS, Wang T, Bredbeck BC, Sinco BR, Berlin NL, Dossett LA. Trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy utilization for small unilateral breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2021;262:71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.12.057 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.12.057
pubmed: 33548676
pmcid: 8043987
Nelson JA, Rubenstein RN, Haglich K, et al. Analysis of a trend reversal in U.S. lumpectomy rates from, through 2017 using 3 nationwide data sets. JAMA Surg. 2005;2022(157):702–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2065 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2065
Hwang ES, Locklear TD, Rushing CN, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after choice for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1518–27. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5427 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5427
pubmed: 26951322
Rosenberg SM, Sepucha K, Ruddy KJ, et al. Local therapy decision-making and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in young women with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3809–15. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4572-6 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4572-6
pubmed: 25930247
pmcid: 4598267
Hunt KK, Euhus DM, Boughey JC, et al. Society of surgical oncology breast disease working group statement on prophylactic (risk-reducing) mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:375–97. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5688-z .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5688-z
pubmed: 27933411
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. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5408-8 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5408-8
pubmed: 27469118
pmcid: 4999472
Murphy AI, Asadourian PA, Mellia JA, Rohde CH. Complications associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150:61S-72S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009493 .
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009493
pubmed: 35943952
Montagna G, Morrow M. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer: what to discuss with patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2020;20:159–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2020.1732213 .
doi: 10.1080/14737140.2020.1732213
pubmed: 32077338
pmcid: 7193761
Anderson C, Islam JY, Elizabeth Hodgson M, et al. Long-term satisfaction and body image after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:1499–506. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5753-7 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5753-7
pubmed: 28058563
pmcid: 5472420
Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:002748. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002748.pub4 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002748.pub4
Bloom DL, Chapman BM, Wheeler SB, et al. Reframing the conversation about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: preparing women for postsurgical realities. Psychooncology. 2019;28:394–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4955 .
doi: 10.1002/pon.4955
pubmed: 30500102
Dicks E, Roome R, Chafe J, et al. Factors influencing surgical treatment decisions for breast cancer: a qualitative exploration of surgeon and patient perspectives. Curr Oncol. 2019;26:e216–25. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.26.4305 .
doi: 10.3747/co.26.4305
pubmed: 31043830
pmcid: 6476459
Lim DW, Metcalfe KA, Narod SA. Bilateral mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer: a review. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:569–76. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6664 .
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6664
pubmed: 33566074
Soran A, Ibrahim A, Kanbour M, et al. Decision-making and factors influencing long-term satisfaction with prophylactic mastectomy in women with breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015;38:179–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e318292f8a7 .
doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318292f8a7
pubmed: 23648435
SingareekaRaghavendra A, Alameddine HF, Andersen CR, et al. Influencers of the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women with unilateral breast cancer. Cancers Basel. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13092050 .
doi: 10.3390/cancers13092050
Rowland E, Metcalfe A. A systematic review of men’s experiences of their partner’s mastectomy: coping with altered bodies. Psychooncology. 2014;23:963–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3556 .
doi: 10.1002/pon.3556
pubmed: 24800690
Fasse L, Flahault C, Vioulac C, et al. The decision-making process for breast reconstruction after cancer surgery: representations of heterosexual couples in long-standing relationships. Br J Health Psychol. 2017;22:254–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12228 .
doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12228
pubmed: 28127844
About Oncotype DX Breast DCIS Score. OncotypeIQ. https://www.oncotypeiq.com/en-US/breast-cancer/healthcare-professionals/oncotype-dx-breast-dcis-score/about-the-test . Accessed 31 Mar 2022.
Loaring JM, Larkin M, Shaw R, Flowers P. Renegotiating sexual intimacy in the context of altered embodiment: the experiences of women with breast cancer and their male partners following mastectomy and reconstruction. Health Psychol. 2015;34:426–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000195 .
doi: 10.1037/hea0000195
pubmed: 25822057
Schulman-Green D, Cherlin E, Capasso R, et al. Patient and family caregiver considerations when selecting early breast cancer treatment: implications for clinical pathway development. Patient. 2020;13:683–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00426-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00426-7
pubmed: 32508006
Palmer Kelly E, Agne JL, Meara A, Pawlik TM. Reciprocity within patient-physician and patient-spouse/caregiver dyads: insights into patient-centered care. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:1237–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4482-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4482-9
pubmed: 30267167
Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Grose C, Brown SC, Collins GN, O’Reilly PH. Partner’s influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2003;92:365–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04355.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04355.x
pubmed: 12930420
Schumm K, Skea Z, McKee L, N’Dow J. “They’re doing surgery on two people”: a meta-ethnography of the influences on couples’ treatment decision-making for prostate cancer. Health Expect. 2010;13:335–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00624.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00624.x
pubmed: 20860778
pmcid: 5060544
Venetis MK, MacGeorge EL, Baptiste DF, et al. Social network, surgeon, and media influence on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2018;41:519–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000321 .
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000321
pubmed: 27465657
Seav SM, Dominick SA, Stepanyuk B, et al. Management of sexual dysfunction in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Womens Midlife Health. 2015;1:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40695-015-0009-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s40695-015-0009-4
pubmed: 30766696
pmcid: 6297963