ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2020
Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in genetically high risk newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the role of germline genetic testing in surgical decision making for early-stage invasive breast cancer: insights from a safety-net hospital.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Surgical Choice among Women with a First Breast Cancer and Pathogenic Variants in Breast Cancer Genes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Association of Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Bilateral Disease.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Psychosocial impact of proactive rapid genetic counseling following breast cancer diagnosis.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy among Women with Pathogenic Variants inThe breast journal · 2022Article
- Predictors of genetic testing uptake in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients.
methodsAs part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM.
resultsAmong patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM.
conclusionThe strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.