Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26259752›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2015

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: Challenging Considerations for the Surgeon.

Peter Angelos, Isabelle Bedrosian, David M Euhus, Virginia M Herrmann, Steven J Katz, Andrea Pusic

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The Influence of Emotions on Treatment Decisions About Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Opioid Prescribing and Physician Autonomy: A Quality of Care Perspective.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Peter AngelosMcLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Isabelle Bedrosian
David M Euhus
Virginia M Herrmann
Steven J Katz
Andrea Pusic
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Chicago Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of both bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased significantly during the last decade. Various risk models have been developed to identify patients at increased risk for breast cancer. The indications for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy for patients without a diagnosis of breast cancer include high risk from mutation in BRCA or other breast cancer predisposition gene, very strong family history with no identifiable mutation, and high risk based on breast histology. Additionally, the use of CPM has more than doubled in the last decade, and this increase is noted among all stages of breast cancer, even in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (stage 0). The risk of contralateral breast cancer often is overestimated by both patients and physicians. Nevertheless, specific risk factors are associated with an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer, including BRCA or other genetic mutation, young age at diagnosis, lobular histology, family history, and prior chest wall irradiation. Although CPM reduces the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, the effect on disease-free survival and, more importantly, overall survival is questionable and underscored by the fact that the reason most patients choose CPM is to achieve "peace of mind." Newer and effective reconstructive options have made the procedure more attractive. This panel addresses the indications and rationale for bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and CPM, the decision-making process by patients, and ethical considerations. Changes in the physician-patient relationship during the past few decades have altered the approach, and ethical considerations are paramount in addressing these issues.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, LobularFemaleHumansMastectomyNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasms, Second PrimaryRisk AssessmentSurgeons

Identifiers

PMID26259752
PMCPMC4836440
OpenAlexW1190997734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.