Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

‘Taking Control of Cancer’: Understanding Women’s Choice for Mastectomy

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Rates of both unilateral (UM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) have been increasing since 2003. Recent studies suggest that this increase may be due to women choosing UM and CPM because of fear. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study to identify those factors influencing a woman’s choice for more extensive surgery.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with breast cancer patients to examine the experiences, decision making, and choice of UM ± CPM for the treatment of ESBC. Purposive sampling identified suitable candidates for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) who underwent UM ± CPM. Interviews were guided by grounded theory methodology, and constant comparative analysis identified key concepts and themes.

Results

Data saturation was achieved after 29 interviews. ‘Taking control of cancer’ was the dominant theme. Fear of breast cancer was expressed at diagnosis and remained throughout decision making. Personal experiences of family or friends ‘living with cancer’ were the most influential source of information during the decision-making process. Fear translated into an overestimated risk of recurrence, contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and death. Despite surgeons discussing equivalent survival with BCT, UM ± CPM patients believed that by choosing UM ± CPM they would eliminate recurrence, CBC and live longer. By choosing more extensive surgery, women were actively trying to control cancer outcomes as more surgery was believed to offer greater survival.

Conclusions

Women seek UM and CPM to take control of cancer and manage their fear. It is important for surgeons to understand how personal experiences shape women’s choice for UM ± CPM to facilitate informed decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institutes of Health. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. June 18–21 1990. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.

  2. Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 NIH Consensus Development Conference. Cancer. 1999;86:628–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaudette LA, Goa RN, Spence A, Shi F, Joahnesen H, et al. Declining use of mastectomy for invasive breast cancer in Canada, 1981–2000. Can J Public Health. 2004;95:336–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. de Koning HJ, van Dongen JA, van der Maas PJ. Changes in use of breast-conserving therapy in years 1978–2000. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:1165–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harries SA, Lawrence RN, Scrivener R, Fieldman NR, Kissin MW. A survey of the management of breast cancer in England and Wales. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1996;78:197–202.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Neuburger J, Macneill F, Jeevan R, et al. Trends in the use of bilateral mastectomy in England from 2002 to 2011: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003179.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones NB, Wilson J, Kotur L, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: an increasing trend at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2691–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, et al. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–09.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dragun AE, Huang B, Tucker TC, et al. Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice. Breast J. 2012;18:318–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dragun AE, Pan J, Riley EC, et al. Increasing use of elective mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic surgery among breast conservation candidates. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:375–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, et al. Trends in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 1998–2007. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2554–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomez SL, Lichtensztajn D, Kurian AW, et al. Increasing mastectomy rates for early-stage breast cancer? Population-based trends from California. J Clin Oncol. 2010;26:e155–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mahmood U, Hanlon AL, Koshy M, et al. Increasing national mastectomy rates for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1436–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Breast Cancer Surgery in Canada, 2007–2008 to 2009–2010. In: Dabbs K, Porter G, Wai E, eds. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2012. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/BreastCancer_7-8_9-10_EN.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2014.

  15. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer risk reduction. Version 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast_risk.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2014.

  16. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: high risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2014.

  17. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2158–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–88.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5640–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Benedict S, Cole DJ, Baron L, et al. Factors influencing choice between mastectomy and lumpectomy for women in the Carolinas. J Surg Oncol. 2001;76:6–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nekhlyudov L, Bower M, Herrinton LJ, et al. Women’s decision-making roles regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005;35:55–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302:1551–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, et al. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2697–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and clinical determinants of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. JAMA Surg. Epub 21 May 2014.

  26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2014.

  27. Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling: merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:623–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McCann TV, Clarke E. Grounded theory in nursing research. Part 1: methodology. Nurse Res. 2002;11:7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ. 2008;337:a567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guest G. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuzel A. Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, eds. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage; 1992. pp. 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Charmaz K. Grounded theory in the 21st century. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME, et al. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:373–81.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Holtzman NA, et al. Decoding informed consent: insights from women regarding breast cancer susceptibility testing. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997;27:28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kenen R, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R. We are talking, but are they listening? Communication patterns in families with a history of breast/ovarian cancer. Psychooncology. 2004;13:335–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. d’Agincourt-Canning L. The effect of experiential knowledge on construction of risk perception in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns. 2005;14:55–69.

  39. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Risky feelings: why a 6 % risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(Suppl):S87–93.

  40. Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients’ decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Borgida E, Nisbett RE. The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. J Appl Psychol. 1977;7:258–71.

  42. Petrie KJ, Weinman J. Patients’ perceptions of their illness. Curr Direct Psych Sci. 2012;21:60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, et al. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Folkman S, Lazarus RS, Gruen RJ, et al. Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;50:571–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pearlin LI, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav. 1978;19:2–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Henselmans I, Sanderman R, Helgeson VS, et al. Personal control over the cure of breast cancer: adaptiveness, underlying beliefs and correlates. Psychooncology. 2010;19:525–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tomich PL, Helgeson VS. Cognitive adaptation theory and breast cancer recurrence: are there limits? J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74:980–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:(11):CD002748.

  49. Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, et al. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1564–9.

  50. Forbes JF, Cuzick J, Buzdar A, Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists’ Group, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B. Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:1038–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, et al. Factors influencing prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma: analysis of 767 T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2090–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Osman F, Saleh F, Jackson TD, et al. Increased postoperative complications in bilateral mastectomy patients compared to unilateral mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Miller ME, Czechura T, Martz B, et al. Operative risks associated with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a single institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Goldflam K, Hunt KK, Gershenwald JE, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Predictors of significant histologic findings. Cancer. 2004;101:1977–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Brummett CM. Chronic pain following breast surgery. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag. 2011;15:124–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gartner R, Jensen M-B, Nielsen J, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with persistent pain following breast cancer surgery. JAMA. 2009;302:1985–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tasmuth T, Von Smitten K, Hietanen P, et al. Pain and other symptoms after different treatment modalities of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1995;6:453–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Altschuler A, Nekhlyudov L, Rolnick SJ, et al. Positive, negative, and disparate: women’s differing long-term psychosocial experiences of bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast J. 2008;14:25–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Frost MH, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: long-term consistency of satisfaction and adverse effects and the significance of informed decision-making, quality of life, and personality traits. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3110–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, et al. Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:435–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shaffer VA, Tomek S, Hulsey L. The effect of narrative information in a publicly available patient decision aid for early-stage breast cancer. Health Commun. 2014;29:64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: effects on treatment choices. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:60–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bekker HL, Winterbottom AE, Butow P, et al. Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? A critical review of theory and evidence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

With sincere thanks to Dr. M. Aarts, Dr. N. Down, Dr. R. George, and Dr. T. Gillis for their assistance in recruiting study participants. The authors would also like to thank all of the patient participants who offered their time and shared their experiences.

Disclosure

Dr. Covelli received a research fellowship from the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation – Roche Physician Fellowship Program, and 1 year of salary support from the Clinical Investigator Program – Ontario Ministry of Health salary support program. She also received a travel grant to present work related to this research from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, as well as a Novartis Oncology Young Clinical Investigators Award (NOYCIA) and an ASCO Merit Award for work presented related to this research. The Surgeon Scientist Training Program provided indirect financial support to Dr. Covelli through programs delivered to surgeon scientists in training at the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto. Dr. Baxter holds the Cancer Care Ontario Health Services Research Chair. Dr. McCready receives research support from the Gattuso Chair in Breast Surgical Oncology at Princess Margaret Hospital.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea M. Covelli MD, PhD(c).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Covelli, A.M., Baxter, N.N., Fitch, M.I. et al. ‘Taking Control of Cancer’: Understanding Women’s Choice for Mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22, 383–391 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4033-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-4033-7

Keywords

Navigation