Introduction
Breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer occurring in women with an annual
incidence of 252,710 cases in the United States, resulting in 41,070 deaths, only
second to lung cancer.[1] The prevalence in 2014 had reached 3,346,387 cases with a probability of 12.4% for
a women to be diagnosed with breast cancer during her lifetime that increases with
age.[1],[2] Based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, there
has been a change in breast cancer incidence between the years 1975 and 2014. The
reported annual percent changes in the years 1975–1980 and 2004–2014 were −0.5 and
0.3, respectively. A surge of breast cancer incidence during the 1980s can be explained
by changes in female reproductive patterns and the adoption of more aggressive screening
techniques that have led to increased detection of the disease.[2] Risk factors for developing breast cancer occurrence or recurrence are multiple
and complex, including family history, genetic mutations, lifestyle, radiation exposure,
parity, previous history, etc., The clinical features and the type of primary cancer
treatment can affect the risk of the recurrence as well.[3] In general, the rate of recurrence is higher in the first few years after the initial
breast cancer diagnosis, and it drops down after that.[4] Multiple strategies have been implemented to reduce the risk of breast cancer occurrence,
and recurrence. These interventions include lifestyle modification, early detection
with imaging, chemoprevention and surgical intervention.[3] Prophylactic mastectomy is one of the growing strategies for breast cancer risk
reduction.[5] In this review, we are going to discuss the current evidence for prophylactic mastectomy
in regard to types, indications and its role in breast cancer prevention.
High-Risk Population
Assessing breast cancer risk is based on both endogenous and exogenous factors. Mutations
affecting known genes, compelling family history, having benign breast diseases with
specific histologic features, previous history of breast cancer or radiation therapy
to the breast all increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Familial susceptibility
to breast cancer accounts for <25% of all breast cancer cases.[6] Several genes have been implicated in familial cases. Mutations in breast cancer
1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) genes explain ~20% of the familial clustering
of breast cancer.[6] BRCA1 is a tumor suppressor gene mapped to chromosome 17. Its protein product is
part of a complex compound responsible for repairing double-strand breaks in deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) that contribute to genomic instability and drive cancer development.[7],[8] These breaks can be induced by radiation exposure or chemotherapy.[9] BRCA2 gene is located on chromosome 13 and has a similar function to BRCA1 gene.[10],[11] These genes are important for the stability of the genome. The predisposed subject
carries a defective allele of a tumor suppressor gene. Meanwhile, a second hit, a
loss of the second gene copy, is a necessary step to cause tumor cell growth.[12] Thus, women carrying BRCA1 or 2 gene mutations are thought to have a significantly
higher risk of developing breast cancer, usually diagnosed at a younger age compared
to general population.[13],[14],[15],[16] It is estimated that the average cumulative risk of breast cancer by age 70 years
is 57%–65% for BRCA1 gene mutation carriers and 45%–49% for BRCA2 gene mutation carriers
with 20-times increase in the risk of breast cancer compared to general population.[13],[14],[17] Similarly, mutations in other genes account for only a small fraction of the familial
cases. The p53 gene is located on chromosome 17, and like BRCA, it is a tumor suppressor
gene. Mutations in this gene are found in 50% of all cancer types.[18] They are associated with a high lifetime risk of cancer and involved in 1% of hereditary
breast cancer cases.[19] The absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer in p53 gene mutation carriers is estimated
to be 24%.[20] The phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene located on chromosome 10 is widely
expressed throughout the body. It regulates cell cycle and triggers apoptosis. Mutations
in this gene underlie a number of tumor syndromes: Cowden syndrome, Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba
syndrome, and Proteus and Proteus-like syndromes. These syndromes increase the risks
for several types of cancer, with female breast cancer being the highest.[21] It is estimated that the absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer for PTEN mutation
carriers is 25%.[22] Apart from familial susceptibility, sporadic cases that show no familial clustering
are mainly due to the accumulation of poorly penetrant mutations in a number of genes
affected by environmental factors. In general, genetic mutations are considered high
risk for developing breast cancer when they show a 4-fold increased risk of breast
cancer in carriers compared to general population. Some benign breast diseases have
been reported to increase the risk of subsequent development of breast cancer. Noticeably,
the risk is higher with proliferative diseases than nonproliferative histological
changes. A cohort of 4970 women with biopsy-proven benign breast diseases was studied
retrospectively for the determination of subsequent development of breast cancer.[23] The estimated overall breast cancer incidence rate was 452/100,000 person years
at risk. Age >50 years increased the risk by 80%. Breast cancer risk was significantly
higher in women with proliferative lesions with an incidence rate ratio of 1.7, reaching
5.0 in atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). Similarly, the relative risk associated
with nonproliferative lesions was estimated to be 1.28, compared to 1.88 for proliferative
lesions and 4.24 for atypia. However, women with nonproliferative lesions and negative
family history showed no increased risk.[24] The results of two other studies are consistent with the previous study and show
comparable estimates of the risk ranging from 1.6 to 1.9 for women with proliferative
disease without atypia and from 3.7 to 5.3 for atypical hyperplasia, all compared
to women having nonproliferative lesions. They also reported elevated risk associated
with calcification in proliferative lesions and in premenopausal women with atypical
hyperplasia.[25],[26] Estimated 10-year cancer risks were 17.3% with ADH, 20.7% with atypical lobular
hyperplasia, 23.7% with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), and 26% with severe ADH.[27] In addition to the benign breast diseases, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a
noninvasive breast cancer composed of malignant epithelial cells completely bounded
by a basement membrane of mammary ducts, which typically does not metastasize to lymph
nodes. The proportion of DCIS is about 20% of screening-detected breast cancers, and
it carries a higher risk for developing invasive disease.[28],[29] One study found that low-grade DCIS has 9 times increased risk of developing cancer
at the same site within 30 years after diagnosis (95% confidence interval, 4.7–17).[30] The final diagnosis of a group of 241 women who underwent a mastectomy following
a preoperative biopsy showing DCIS revealed that 14% of the patients had microinvasive
carcinoma, and 21% had invasive ductal carcinoma.[31] An earlier study reported that 26% of the patients were found to have an invasive
disease.[32] Another similar study showed comparable results.[33] The previous studies identified predictors correlated with infiltration and all
agreed on palpable tumor and large size DCIS. Early thoracic radiation before the
age 30 years is a significant risk factor of breast cancer. The Late Effect Study
Group trail reported a 56.7-fold greater overall risk of breast cancer associated
with prior mantle radiotherapy at young age compared to general population.[34] Women treated for unilateral breast cancer have an increased risk to develop contralateral
breast cancer with a 5-fold increased incidence of new cancer compared to general
population.[35],[36],[37] The estimates are listed in [Table 1].
Table 1
Risk of developing breast cancer
|
BRCA: Breast cancer, BRCA1: Breast cancer 1, BRCA2: Breast cancer 2, PTEN: Phosphatase
and tensin homolog, ADH: Atypical ductal hyperplasia, ALH: Atypical lobular hyperplasia,
LCIS: Lobular carcinoma in situ
|
|
BRCA genetic mutations
|
Cumulative risk by age 70 years (%)
|
|
BRCAI
|
65
|
|
BRCA2
|
45
|
|
Other genetic mutations
|
Absolute lifetime risk (%)
|
|
p53
|
24
|
|
PTEN
|
25
|
|
Histologic risk factors
|
10 years risk (%)
|
|
ADH
|
17.3
|
|
ALH
|
20.7
|
|
LCIS
|
23.7
|
|
Severe ADH
|
26.0
|
|
Other factors
|
Overall risk
|
|
Early thoracic radiation
|
56.7-fold
|
|
Prior history of breast cancer 5-fold
|
Prophylactic Mastectomy
The use of both prophylactic bilateral and contralateral mastectomies is steadily
increasing in the United States. Prophylactic mastectomy may be bilateral in healthy
women at a high risk of breast cancer, or unilateral if done for a noninvasive breast
lesion or in addition to a therapeutic mastectomy in the contralateral breast.[5] The rate of prophylactic mastectomy in women at a high-risk of breast cancer had
increased during the years between 2004 and 2008 to reach 35.7% for bilateral mastectomy
and 22.9% for contralateral mastectomy.[38],[39] Prophylactic mastectomy could be technically performed in different ways.[40] Total mastectomy (also called simple mastectomy) is a procedure where the majority
of the breast tissue including the nipple-areola complex is removed through an elliptical
skin incision, but muscle tissue beneath the breast and axillary lymph nodes are spared.[5] It is unlikely to eradicate all breast tissue; even though, all the visible breast
tissue is removed. Some of the breast tissue can be unintentionally left underneath
the skin, on the inframammary fold, or near the axilla fat pad.[40],[41] In addition to total mastectomy, skin-sparing mastectomy is a way to remove the
breast tissue including the nipple-areolar complex through a periareolar incision
leaving most of the skin over the breast intact. This facilitates reconstruction,
and the skin of the breast is preserved with no scaring.[40] As an extension of skin-sparing mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy (also called
total skin-sparing mastectomy) preserves the nipple-areola complex and the skin over
the breast.[42] This is usually achieved through an inframammary incision where the skin is carefully
dissected off the breast until all the anatomic boundaries of the breast are reached,
and the breast in its entirety is excised. It is important to avoid leaving any breast
tissue behind the nipple-areola complex. This process is technically demanding and
much effort is required to reach the uppermost deep boundaries of the breast through
a small and far incision.[41],[42] Specific retractors with light sources may be used to facilitate the excision.[43] Historically, skin-sparing mastectomy was preferred more commonly than total mastectomy.
Today, total mastectomy is the preferred prophylactic procedure, because of the advantage
of current nipple reconstruction techniques.[5],[38] Increased rate of postoperative complications in addition to the doubtable oncologic
safety in nipple-sparing mastectomy created reluctance amongst some institutions and
surgeons to adopt this technique.[44],[45] In general, there is still debate about the most appropriate type of mastectomy
for high-risk women, and it should be carefully selected.[41],[42]
Efficacy of Prophylactic Mastectomy
Bilateral
Impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy on breast cancer incidence
BRCA
In BRCA gene mutation carriers, several studies showed a significant reduction in
the incidence of breast cancer occurring in women who underwent bilateral prophylactic
mastectomies. In 2001, Meijers-Heijboer et al.[46] conducted a prospective cohort study of 139 women carrying BRCA1 or 2 gene mutations.
Seventy-six (55%) of these women underwent prophylactic bilateral simple mastectomy,
whereas the other 63 (45%) women remained under surveillance. As a result of a mean
follow-up period of 2.9 years, none of the 76 women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy
developed breast cancer, compared to 8 breast cancer cases diagnosed in the group
under surveillance (ratio of observed to expected cases, 1.2; 95% confidence interval,
0.4–3.7). In the same year, Hartmann et al.[47] identified 26 women with BRCA1 or 2 gene mutation from their previous retrospective
cohort study of bilateral prophylactic mastectomies. None of the patients developed
breast cancer during a median follow-up of 13.4 years after the prophylactic mastectomies.
Using two models, these studies show an 85% to 100% risk reduction achieved by prophylactic
mastectomy. In addition, in 2004, Rebbeck et al.[48] conducted a prospective cohort study of 483 women of the same risk group. One hundred
and five of these women who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy were compared
to 378 controls who did not undergo prophylactic surgery. With a mean follow-up of
6.4 years, breast cancer was found in two patients (1.9%) of the bilateral prophylactic
mastectomy arm and in 184 (48.7%) of the matched control arm, confirming 90% to 95%
reduction in breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. In a recent
large prospective cohort study, Domchek et al.[49] assessed the relationship between prophylactic mastectomy and breast cancer outcomes
in BRCA1 and 2 gene mutation carriers. No breast cancers were seen in 257 women who
underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy compared to 7% of women without the surgery
over 3 years of follow-up, showing decreased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and 2
gene mutation carriers associated with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Moreover,
in a study conducted in 2015, 63 women carrying BRCA1 or 1 gene mutation who underwent
nipple-sparing prophylactic mastectomy reported no newly diagnosed breast cancers
at a median follow-up of 26 months supporting the same conclusion.[44]
Non-BRCA
Regardless of the BRCA gene status, two retrospective cohort studies evaluated the
efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for breast cancer
due to variable reasons. Hartmann et al.[50] categorized 639 women who underwent bilateral mastectomy because of family history
of breast cancer into moderated-risk and high-risk groups. Women in the high-risk
group included women with a family history of breast cancer in one or more first-degree
or second-degree relatives, who were diagnosed at an early age, had bilateral disease,
males or had associated history of ovarian cancer. Otherwise, they would be categorized
into the moderate-risk group. The study used a control group of sisters, and the Gail
model to predict the number of cases of breast cancer in both cohorts. After a median
follow-up of 14 years, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy was found to be associated
with a reduction in the incidence of breast cancer by 90%. In 2005, Geiger et al.[51] identified 276 women with family history of breast cancer in one or more first-degree
or second-degree relatives, history of atypical hyperplasia or one or more biopsy
with benign findings who had undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and compared
them to 196 women reflecting the age and geographic distribution who had not undergone
the surgery. The results of this study show that breast cancer developed in 0.4% of
the former group compared to 4% in the latter.
Lobular carcinoma in situ
LCIS is rarely managed by bilateral mastectomy.[52] Only a few authors advocated it based on the equal risk of both breasts to develop
invasive disease.[53] In one study, 56 patients chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and all remained
cancer free. That was compared to 1032 patients who remained under surveillance with
or without chemoprevention where 14% developed breast cancer after a median follow-up
of 81 months. Notably, patients who opt for mastectomy had a stronger family history.[52]
Impact of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy on breast cancer survival
Despite the confirmed reduction in breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic
mastectomy, it is reasonable to question whether this preventive procedure results
in improved overall survival in the light of modern detection and treatment modalities.
In 1997, Schrag et al.[54] compared prophylactic bilateral mastectomy with no prophylactic surgery among women
carrying BRCA1 or 2 gene mutation carriers. They calculated that 30-year-old women
gain from 2.9 to 5.3 years of life expectancy after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy
on average. They also reported that increased age at the time of the procedure results
in a declined gain in life expectancy reaching its minimal for 60-year-old women.
In 2002, Grann et al.[55] conducted a similar simulated cohort of 30-year-old women carrying BRCA1 or 2 gene
mutation using Markov model. They reported that these women could prolong their survival
3.5 years with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with a decrease in benefit according
to age. More recently, in 2010, Kurian et al.[56] developed a Monte Carlo model to simulate and compare different strategies for reducing
cancer mortality in BRCA1 and 2 gene mutation carriers. This study reported that in
BRCA1 gene mutation carriers, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy at age 25 years yields
a 13% gain relative to no intervention, whereas delaying prophylactic mastectomy to
age 40 years yields a small (2%) decrement in gain compared with prophylactic mastectomy
at age 25 years. In BRCA2 gene mutation carriers, the reduction in mortality decreases
to 8% (from 79% to 71%) only at age 25 years compared with no intervention; postponing
prophylactic mastectomy to age 40 years reduces gain by 1%. This study considers prophylactic
mastectomy the most effective single intervention in overall survival in BRCA2 gene
mutation carriers. Moreover, in 2012, Sigal et al.[57] applied their previously developed Monte Carlo simulation model to measure the effect
of many factors on the gains in life expectancy resulted from conducting prophylactic
strategies. Delaying prophylactic mastectomy by 5–10 years could decrease the gain
in life expectancy by a range from 1 to 9.9 years in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers
and from 0.5 to 4.2 years in BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. In conclusion, all these
studies suggest a substantial gain in life expectancy after bilateral prophylactic
mastectomy. This benefit decreases with age. Studies reporting the impact of bilateral
mastectomy are listed in [Table 2].
Table 2
Studies reporting the impact of bilateral mastectomy
|
Study (author, year)
|
Population
|
Main findings
|
|
BRCA1: Breast cancer 1, BRCA2: Breast cancer 2, BC: Breast cancer, PM: Prophylactic
mastectomy, HR: Hazard ratio, CI: Confidence interval, LCIS: Lobular carcinoma in
situ
|
|
Meijers-Heijboer et al., 2001[46]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Decreased incidence of BC after PM (HR=0; 95% CI=0-0.36; P=0.003)
|
|
Hartmann et al., 2001[47]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Reduction in observed risk of BC after PM=89.5% (95% CI=4l.4%-99.7%)-l00% (95% CI=68.0%-I00.0%)
|
|
Rebbeck et al., 2004[48]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Decreased incidence of BC after PM (HR=0.05-0.09; P<0.00l)
|
|
Domchek et al., 2010[49]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Decreased risk of BC after PM
|
|
Manning et al., 2015[44]
|
BRCA1/2
|
No newly diagnosed breast cancers
|
|
Hartmann et al., 1999[50]
|
History of BC
|
Reduction in risk of BC after PM, 89.5%; (P<0.00l)
|
|
Geiger et al., 2005[51]
|
Family history, history of atypical hyperplasia, or >1 benign breast biopsies
|
Decreased incidence of BC after PM (HR=0.005; 95% CI=0.00I-0.044)
|
|
King et al., 2015[52]
|
LCIS
|
No newly diagnosed breast cancers
|
|
Schrag et al., 1997[54]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Suggested 2.9-5.3 year gain in life expectancy after PM
|
|
Grann et al., 2002[55]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Suggested 3.5 years gain in life expectancy after PM
|
|
Kurian et al., 20I0[56]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Suggested 13% gain in life expectancy in BRCAI and 8% in BRCA2 after PM at age 25
years
|
|
Sigal et al., 2012[57]
|
BRCA1/2
|
1-9.9 year decreased gain in life expectancy in BRCAI and 0.5-4.2 year in BRCA2 with
delaying PM by 5-10 year
|
Surgical morbidity of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy
In a study in 1997 of 92 women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy followed by breast
implantation, the rate of complications was 17.3% at 1 year and 30.4% at 5 years in
women who received implants after prophylactic mastectomy during a mean follow-up
of 7.8 years. The most frequent problems were capsular contraction, implant rupture,
hematoma, and wound infection, respectively.[58] However, 1 year later, a study measured the overall satisfaction rate among women
who had bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, and it reported that only 5% of 370 women
expressed regrets about the procedure over a median follow-up of 14.6 years.[59]
Ipsilateral
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Most of the patients with DCIS are treated with breast-conserving surgery. However,
one-third of patients undergo mastectomy. Data from SEER registries showed steady
decline in the use of mastectomy for treatment of DCIS from 43% in 1992 to 28% in
1999 with significant variations among SEER sites.[60],[61] A number of recent studies have evaluated the impact of mastectomy for the treatment
of DCIS regarding recurrence and survival. In 2011, a total of 496 patients with pure
DCIS were prospectively followed-up a median of 83 months after treatment with mastectomy.
Eleven (2%) patients with multifocal disease and comedo-type necrosis developed recurrences.[62] A 10-year follow-up prospective study conducted in 2012 showed only one case of
distant recurrence of a lesion that originally was high-grade DCIS among 54 patients.
None of whom developed locoregional or local recurrence.[63] Another retrospective study of 803 patients with DCIS followed-up for 6.3 years
showed 1% 10-year rate for locoregional recurrence and 6.4% for contralateral breast
cancer.[64] A large prospective study involving 2894 women diagnosed with DCIS was conducted
in 2015. As a result of a median follow-up of 9 years, 45 (1.6%) patients had an ipsilateral
further event, and 83 (2.9%) had a contralateral event.[65] In addition to recurrence, two more retrospective studies evaluated survival in
this group of patients. The first study of 637 patients with DCIS treated with mastectomy
showed a cancer-specific survival of 98.0% and overall survival of 90.3%.[66] The second study of 1546 participants showed consistent results.[67] Other studies reporting comparable results are listed in [Table 3].
Table 3
Studies reporting the impact of ipsilateral mastectomy on recurrence in ductal carcinoma
in situ
|
Study (author, year)
|
Type
|
Median follow-up
|
Intervention
|
Number of patients
|
Recurrences
|
|
SSM: Skin-sparing mastectomy, LR: Local recurrence, RR: Regional recurrence, DR: Distant
recurrence, NSM: Nipple-sparing mastectomy, CWR: Chest wall recurrence
|
|
Rubio et al., 2000[68]
|
Retrospective
|
3.7 years
|
SSM
|
95
|
3 LR
|
|
Carlson et al., 2007[69]
|
Retrospective
|
6.3 years
|
SSM
|
223
|
7 LR, 2 RR and 2 DR
|
|
Rashtian et al., 2008[70]
|
Retrospective
|
61 months
|
Mastectomy
|
574
|
80 LR
|
|
Godat et al., 2009[71]
|
Retrospective
|
4.5 years
|
Mastectomy
|
83
|
0
|
|
Reefy et al., 2010[72]
|
Prospective
|
36 months
|
SSM
|
25
|
0
|
|
Kelley et al., 20II[62]
|
Prospective
|
83 months
|
Mastectomy
|
496
|
11
|
|
de Alcantara Filho et al., 2011[73]
|
Prospective
|
10.38 months
|
NSM
|
74
|
0
|
|
Chan et al., 2011[74]
|
Retrospective
|
8 years
|
Mastectomy
|
193
|
2 CWR
|
|
Childs et al., 2013[75]
|
Retrospective
|
7.6 years
|
Mastectomy
|
142
|
2
|
|
Romics et al., 20I2[63]
|
Prospective
|
10 years
|
SSM
|
54
|
2 DR
|
|
Chadha et al., 20I2[76]
|
Retrospective
|
55 months
|
Mastectomy
|
211
|
2 locoregional recurrences
|
|
Clements et al., 20I5[65]
|
Prospective
|
9 years
|
Mastectomy
|
2894
|
45 ipsilateral and 83 contralateral recurrences
|
|
Klein et al., 20I5[67]
|
Retrospective
|
10 years
|
Mastectomy
|
1546
|
36 CWR
|
|
Bannani et al., 2015[77]
|
Retrospective
|
39 months
|
Mastectomy
|
210
|
6 locoregional and 2 DR
|
Data regarding attribution of factors such as age, resection margin status, microinvasion,
comedo-necrosis, tumor grade, tumor size or multifocal or multicentric tumor on the
risk of recurrence are conflicting and not clear enough to guide the use of chest
wall radiation post mastectomy.[62],[64],[66],[67],[69],[70],[75],[76],[77]
Lobular carcinoma in situ
Unlike the current trend, women diagnosed with LCIS were often treated with mastectomy.[78],[79] The shift toward more conservative measures resulted from data suggesting a lower
estimated risk of breast cancer in these women.[80] A group of studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s compared the results of patients
treated with mastectomy and those under surveillance. A study including 124 patients
with LCIS; 105 underwent mastectomy and 19 kept under follow-up, showed 1 infiltrating
lobular carcinoma (IFLC) in the mastectomy group and two in the surveillance group.[81] Similarly, in another study with a median follow-up period of 16 years, six patients
treated with mastectomy were compared to 40 patients underwent diagnostic biopsy only,
15 recurrences were observed in the second group; nearly 75% of which were infiltrating
and 50% appeared in the first 10 years. No recurrences were observed in the mastectomy
group.[82] In 2015, a study compared the results of 24 patients who underwent mastectomy alone,
159 patients who underwent breast conservative surgery alone and 17 patients who underwent
breast conservative surgery and radiation. In the breast conservative surgery group,
20 (13%) patients developed local recurrence by 6 years, and by 10 years, the rate
increased to 17.5%. After 12 years of follow-up of the other two groups, three patients
(17%) in the breast conservative surgery and radiation group developed local recurrence,
while no recurrence was observed in the mastectomy group.[83] Studies reporting the impact of ipsilateral mastectomy on recurrence in LCIS are
listed in [Table 4].
Table 4
Studies reporting the impact of ipsilateral mastectomy on recurrence in lobular carcinoma
in situ
|
Study (author, year)
|
Median follow-up
|
Intervention
|
Number of patients
|
Recurrence
|
|
NA: Not available, MRM: Modified radical mastectomy, BCS: Breast conservative surgery,
WBRT: Whole breast radiation therapy, LR: Local recurrence
|
|
Benfield et al., I965[84]
|
6.5 years
|
Mastectomy
|
I3
|
0
|
|
Farrow, 1968[85]
|
NA
|
MRM
|
I6I
|
0
|
|
Hutter and Foote, I969[82]
|
I6 years
|
Radical mastectomy
|
6
|
0
|
|
|
Diagnostic biopsy
|
40
|
15; 75% infiltrating
|
|
Donegan and Perez-Mesa, I972[86]
|
2I months
|
Mastectomy
|
35
|
9
|
|
Giordano and Klopp, I973[8I]
|
NA
|
Simple mastectomy
|
I05
|
1 infiltrating
|
|
|
Careful follow-up
|
I9
|
2 infiltrating
|
|
Wheeler et al., I974[87]
|
I5.7 months
|
Simple or radical mastectomy
|
I3
|
0
|
|
|
Careful follow-up
|
25
|
1 infiltrating
|
|
Cutuli et al., 20I5[83]
|
I2 years
|
Mastectomy only
|
24
|
0
|
|
|
BCS and WBRT
|
I7
|
3 (I7%) LR
|
|
6 years
|
BCS only
|
I59
|
20 (I3%) LR
|
Phyllodes
Until the late 1970s, phyllode tumors were mainly treated with mastectomy, regardless
of tumor size or grade.[88] However, recent data consider cautious breast conservative surgery reasonably successful
in providing results comparable to mastectomy.[89] A study analyzed changes in the management of phyllodes in the period between 1952
and 2007 and correlated them to patient's outcomes showed a significant increase in
a number of women undergoing breast conservative surgery instead of mastectomy. Despite
this, there was no increase of disease at 5-year survival.[90]
[Table 5] shows a number of studies comparing different surgical approaches to benign and
borderline phyllodes.
Table 5
Studies reporting the impact of ipsilateral mastectomy on recurrence in phyllodes
|
Study (author, year)
|
Median follow-up (benign/borderline) (months)
|
Intervention
|
Number of patients (benign/borderline)
|
LR (benign/borderline)
|
|
LR: Local recurrence, WLE: Wide local excision, MRM: Modified radical mastectomy,
BCS: Breast conservative surgery
|
|
Salvadori et al., I989[9I]
|
106/84
|
WLE
|
24/22
|
1/10
|
|
|
MRM
|
1/0
|
0/0
|
|
|
Subcutaneous mastectomy
|
0/2
|
0/0
|
|
|
Total mastectomy
|
0/2
|
0/0
|
|
Moffat et al., I995[92]
|
135
|
Local excision
|
16/1
|
6/0
|
|
|
Simple mastectomy
|
5/2
|
0/0
|
|
|
Subcutaneous mastectomy
|
2/1
|
0/0
|
|
Acar et al., 20I5[93]
|
46
|
WLE
|
11/3
|
0/0
|
|
|
Mastectomy
|
0/2
|
0/0
|
|
Toh et al., 2016[94]
|
44.2/26.5
|
BCS
|
17/2
|
2/0
|
|
|
Simple mastectomy
|
1/0
|
0/0
|
|
|
Mastectomy with axillary
|
3/2
|
0/0
|
|
|
clearance
|
|
|
One study conducted in 1996 evaluated the impact of wide local resection and mastectomy
on the survival of patients with benign and borderline phyllodes. In the wide local
resection group, 78 (98.7%) of 79 patients with benign type were found with no evidence
of disease at 5-year survival, compared to 10 (76.9%) of 13 in the mastectomy group.
In patients with borderline type, 12 (80%) of 15 were found with no evidence of disease
at 5-year survival in the wide local resection group compared with 2 (50%) of 4 for
the mastectomy.[95] Tumor size was not correlated with histopathological type, the rate of recurrence
or deaths.[91] In conclusion, most of the evidence support the use mastectomy only when tumor size
in relation to breast volume is large and cannot be resected with acceptable cosmetic
and oncologic outcomes.[91],[95]
No studies evaluated the addition of postmastectomy radiation in the prophylactic
use.
Contralateral
BRCA
A retrospective cohort of 148 women was published by van Sprundel et al.[96] shows the clinical outcome of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and
2 gene mutation carries with the previous history of stage I-IIIa breast cancer. Seventy-nine
of the 148 women underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, while the other
69 remained under regular surveillance. After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, one women
only developed an invasive contralateral primary breast cancer after the contralateral
prophylactic mastectomy, whereas 6 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in the
surveillance group. Another study compared 146 women treated with bilateral, prior,
or delayed contralateral mastectomy with 336 women who retained the contralateral
breast. As a result of a median follow-up of 9.2 years, only 1 contralateral chest
wall recurrence was found in the first group while 97 contralateral breast cancers
were found in the second (hazard ratio = 0.03).[97] The populations of the two previous studies included variant histological types
of breast cancer with infiltrating ductal carcinoma composing more than 60% in both
of them. In a recent prospective study conducted by Manning et al.,[44] 26 BRCA gene mutation carriers of median age 41 years had contralateral prophylactic
nipple-sparing mastectomy. At a median follow-up of 28 months, there were no local
or regional recurrences in any of these women.
Non-BRCA
Peralta et al.[98] compared 64 women with a personal history of infiltrating ductal carcinoma (63%),
IFLC (19%), LCIS (9%) or DCIS (5%) who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
with 182 matching controls. After 6.2 years of follow-up, 36 contralateral breast
cancers were found in the control group. While in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
group, three occult cancers were found in the contralateral breast at the time of
the surgery, but none developed subsequently (P = 0.005). Herrinton et al.[99] conducted a large retrospective cohort comprised approximately 50,000 women in 2005.
In women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, 0.5% of women developed contralateral
breast cancer, 10.5% of women developed metastatic disease and 12.4% developed subsequent
breast cancer; 8.1% of women died of breast cancer. In comparison, 2.7% of women without
contralateral prophylactic mastectomy developed contralateral breast cancer and 11.7
died of the disease. A more recent study composed of 385 patients with stage I or
II breast cancer and a family history of breast cancer defined as parent, sibling,
or second-degree relative with breast cancer who underwent contralateral prophylactic
mastectomy and the same number of matching controls showed 2 (0.5%) contralateral
breast cancers developed in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy group and 31
(8.1%) in the control group, representing a 95% decreased risk of contralateral breast
cancer (hazard ratio = 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.01–0.22).[100]
Infiltrating lobular carcinoma
One study published in 1997 compared the efficacy of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
to the conservative measures in IFLC specifically, by following 18 patients who underwent
contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and 115 patients who did not for a median of
68 months. Three (3%) contralateral cancers were detected in the conservative group
and 3 (17%) LCIS only in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy group, concluding
that careful follow-up is an acceptable choice for patents with IFLC.[101] Studies reporting the impact of contralateral mastectomy are listed in [Table 6].
Table 6
Studies reporting the impact of contralateral mastectomy
|
Study (author, year)
|
Population
|
Main findings
|
|
BRCA1: Breast cancer 1, BRCA2: Breast cancer 2, CBC: Contralateral breast cancer,
PM: Prophylactic mastectomy, HR: Hazard ratio, BC: Breast cancer, CPM: Contralateral
prophylactic mastectomy, CI: Confidence interval, IFLC: Infiltrating lobular carcinoma,
DFS: Disease free survival
|
|
Metcalfe, 2004[97]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Decreased occurrence of CBC after PM (HR=0.03; P=0.0005)
|
|
van Sprundel, 2005[96]
|
BRCA1/2
|
Decreased occurrence of CBC after PM (P<0.001)
|
|
Manning, 20I5[44]
|
BRCA1/2
|
No newly diagnosed breast cancers
|
|
Peralta, 2000[98]
|
Unilateral BC
|
Decreased occurrence of CBC after PM (P=0.005)
|
|
Herrinton, 2005[55]
|
Unilateral BC
|
Decreased occurrence of CBC after CPM (HR=0.03; 95% CI=0.006-0.I3)
|
|
Boughey, 2010[100]
|
Stage I or II BC and family history
|
95% decreased risk of CBC (HR=0.05; 95% CI=0.0I-0.22; P<0.000I)
|
|
Babiera, I997[I0I]
|
IFLC
|
No significant difference in DFS between mastectomy and conservation (P=0.98)
|
Quality of Life After Mastectomy
Although mastectomies, in general, have low morbidity, decrease cancer-specific distress
and improve symmetry in the case of contralateral mastectomies, women still experience
long-term effects.[102],[103],[104] Cosmetic, psychological, and social domains are likely to be impacted. When patients
were asked about general satisfaction with their decision, women who had mastectomies
showed high satisfaction rates reaching 70% after 14.5 years of bilateral mastectomy
and ranging between 83% and 90% after 10.3–20 years of contralateral mastectomies.[105],[106],[107] However, body image issues were significantly affected, especially with bilateral
mastectomies due to many factors, such as self-consciousness, feeling less sexually
attractive, and dissatisfaction with the scars.[103],[104],[107],[108],[109] Decreased sexual satisfaction was linked to both body image issues and loss of sensation
in the breast.[110] Even after long periods of time; one study showed that 36% of the women are still
having problems with their body image after 14 years of bilateral mastectomies.[106] Body appearance was the major issue in contralateral mastectomies as well.[105],[107] Women who underwent unilateral mastectomies were less satisfied by their appearance
than women who underwent bilateral mastectomies. Some data suggest that reconstruction
is associated with less satisfaction in the long-term, explained by more frequent
surgical complications and concerns about implants.[106] This side of prophylactic mastectomies should be highlighted to women considering
the surgery so that they can weigh the benefits alongside the potential adverse effects.
