Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025

Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Published on: May 17, 2024
Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?
Zachary M Brown1, Angela E Schellenberg1, Erin Cordeiro1
1From the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Brown); the Department of Surgery, Selkirk Regional Health Centre, Selkirk, Man. (Brown, Eisen); the Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ont. (Schellenberg); the Department of Surgical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Cordeiro); the Department of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Holloway); the Department of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Scheer); and the CIBC Breast Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Scheer).
Background:
Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer despite low rates of contralateral recurrence and lack of survival benefit. We aimed to investigate the decisional needs and supports required to ensure adequate and quality decision-making by patients with breast cancer facing the decision regarding CPM.
Methods:
In this qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews developed with the use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to investigate the decisional needs and supports of women (aged > 18 yr) with nonhereditary breast cancer who had previously discussed CPM with their care provider. Patients were recruited from 2 academic cancer centres in Toronto, Ontario. Interviews were conducted between June 2016 and October 2017. We analyzed responses to the open-ended questions iteratively and inductively to establish major themes within the results.
Results:
Ten patients were recruited. Eight patients reported having initiated the discussion about CPM. Although most patients reported feeling supported, 6 mentioned some degree of decisional conflict. Cancer risk reduction was the most commonly reported perceived benefit of CPM (9 patients), followed by improved psychologic well-being (7). Most patients (8) did not mention the lack of survival benefit of CPM as a disadvantage of the procedure. Patients indicated that information resources (in 8 cases) and improved counselling from their health care team (in 7) would assist in decision-making.
Conclusion:
Our findings illustrate the disconnect between true and perceived risks (i.e., surgical risk) and benefits (potential recurrence and survival benefit) of CPM, which is not being managed adequately despite support from the health care team. A decision aid may address unmet patient need by providing a reliable resource regarding the benefits and risks of this procedure, while helping patients understand their values and realign their expectations.
Related Concept Videos
Patient-centered Care
Cancer Prevention
Some...
Treatment Resistant Cancers
