lunes, 30 de julio de 2018

Streamlining Decision Making in Contralateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Impact of PREDICT and BOADICEA Computations. - PubMed - NCBI

Streamlining Decision Making in Contralateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Impact of PREDICT and BOADICEA Computations. - PubMed - NCBI



 2018 Jul 17. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6593-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Streamlining Decision Making in Contralateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy: Impact of PREDICT and BOADICEA Computations.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Patients with sporadic breast cancer (BC) have low contralateral breast cancer risk (CLBCR; approximately 0.7% per annum) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) offers no survival advantage. CPM with autologous reconstruction (AR) has major morbidity and resource implications.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to review the impact of PREDICT survival estimates and lifetime CLBCR scores on decision making for CPM in patients with unilateral BC.

METHODS:

Of n = 272 consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy and AR, 252 were included. Five- and 10-year survival was computed with the PREDICT(V2) online prognostication tool, using age and clinicopathological factors. Based on family history (FH) and tumor biology, CLBCR was calculated using validated BODICEA web-based software. Survival scores were correlated against CLBCR estimates to identify patients receiving CPM with 'low' CLBCR (< 30% lifetime risk) and poor prognosis (5-year survival < 80%). Patients with 'high' CLBCR receiving unilateral mastectomy (UM) were similarly identified (UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence [NICE] criteria for CPM, ≥ 30% lifetime BC risk). Justifications motivating CPM were investigated.

RESULTS:

Of 252 patients, 215 had UM and 37 had bilateral mastectomy and AR. Only 23 (62%) patients receiving CPM fulfilled the NICE criteria. Of 215 patients, 5 (2.3%) failed to undergo CPM despite high CLBCR and good prognosis. CPMs were performed, at the patient's request, for no clear justification (n = 8), contralateral non-invasive disease, and/or FH (n = 5), FH alone (n = 4) and ipsilateral cancer recurrence-related anxiety (n = 3).

CONCLUSION:

In the absence of prospective risk estimates of CLBCR and prognosis, certain patients receive CPM and reconstruction despite modest CLBCR, yet a proportion of patients with good prognoses and substantial risk are not undergoing CPM.

PMID:
 
30019305
 
DOI:
 
10.1245/s10434-018-6593-4

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario