| 
			
			 Researchers analyzed survey data from women with early-stage cancer 
			in one breast and found 17 percent had both breasts surgically 
			removed as part of treatment. 
 “For most women with breast cancer, who do not have an inherited 
			genetic mutation that predisposes them to a high risk of cancer 
			formation, the risk of developing a second breast cancer in the 
			other breast is actually quite low,” said lead study author Dr. 
			Reshma Jagsi of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
 
 “Removing the other breast is an extremely aggressive approach with 
			little benefit for most women with breast cancer,” Jagsi added by 
			email. “Yet most women tell us that they pursue this option for 
			peace of mind; to me, this suggests that at least some women have 
			not been fully informed.”
 
			
			 
			Most women with breast cancer have some type of surgery – either a 
			lumpectomy that removes malignant tissue while sparing the rest of 
			the breast or a mastectomy that removes the entire breast. After 
			surgery, many of them also receive chemotherapy to destroy any 
			remaining abnormal cells and reduce the risk of cancer coming back.
 A double mastectomy for cancer in one breast was rare a decade ago, 
			but has become more common in recent years, Jagsi said.
 
 Most women without an inherited genetic risk for aggressive 
			malignancy are not likely to develop tumors in a second breast after 
			cancer is detected in one breast. In fact, they’re more likely to 
			develop cancer in other parts of their body, rather than in the 
			second breast, she noted.
 
 For the study, researchers examined data collected in 2013 and 2014 
			from about 2,400 women with tumors in one breast.
 
 Overall, 1,056 women, or 44 percent, considered a double mastectomy. 
			Of these, 395 women, or less than half, knew that this course of 
			treatment doesn’t improve survival odds for all women with breast 
			cancer, researchers report in JAMA Surgery.
 
 Two-thirds of the study participants didn’t have a high genetic risk 
			for aggressive tumors, and 39 percent of these women said a surgeon 
			had advised against a double mastectomy.
 
 In the subset of women without a genetic risk or identified mutation 
			that boosts the odds for aggressive tumors, 12 percent still had 
			both breasts surgically removed
 
			
			 
			
            [to top of second column] | 
 
			Among these lower-risk women, 19 percent of patients who weren’t 
			advised against a double mastectomy by doctors underwent the 
			procedure. 
			This more aggressive surgical approach to breast cancer carries an 
			increased risk of pain and complications, particularly if women also 
			opt for reconstructive plastic surgery.
 One limitation of the study is its reliance on women to accurately 
			recall and report what they discussed with doctors before choosing a 
			course of treatment, the authors note.
 
 Still, the results highlight a need to balance any psychological 
			benefit women may be getting from the peace of mind that comes with 
			removing both breasts against the long term harms of an unnecessary 
			operation, Dr. Shelley Hwang writes in an accompanying editorial.
 
			In the United States, about one in 10 women with cancer in one 
			breast decide to have the other breast removed as a preventive 
			measure, Hwang, a researcher at Duke University Medical Center in 
			Durham, North Carolina, said by email.
 “This is a number that has been increasing significantly over the 
			last 20 years,” Hwang said.
 
 “This trend has concerned many of us who have worried that women are 
			making this decision based upon an inaccurate understanding of how 
			much they may benefit by having this procedure,” Hwang added. “The 
			current study is important because it surveyed patients about how 
			they made the decision to have the other breast removed, and 
			indicates that better education of patients by their surgeons may 
			help reverse this trend.”
 
 SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2hkUhS2 and http://bit.ly/2hvc0Hq JAMA 
			Surgery, online December 21, 2016.
 
			[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
			
			 |