Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 3380–3388 | Cite as

Striving to Do No Harm and Yet Respect Patient Autonomy: Plastic Surgeons’ Perspectives of the Consultation for Breast Reconstruction with Women Who Have Early-Stage Breast Cancer

  • Selina SchmockerEmail author
  • Lesley Gotlib Conn
  • Erin D. Kennedy
  • Toni Zhong
  • Frances C. Wright
Breast Oncology
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have doubled over the last decade among women considered low risk for developing contralateral breast cancer. Despite the strong association between CPM and breast reconstruction, little is known about the clinical encounter between patients and plastic surgeons. A qualitative study was performed to understand how plastic surgeons describe their roles in the treatment decision-making process through their consultations with women who have unilateral early-stage breast cancer.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with Ontario plastic surgeons were conducted. An inductive and interpretive thematic approach was initially used to analyze the data. The four principles of biomedical ethics then served as the conceptual lens to interpret the findings.

Results

The participants in this study were 18 plastic surgeons, and data saturation was reached. Four themes were identified: maintaining non-maleficence, supporting patient autonomy, delivering (un)equal health care, and providing care to enhance well-being. The ongoing push-pull between competing ethical principles was the overarching theme, specifically, striving to balance parallel responsibilities to do no harm while also respecting patients’ rights to make their own healthcare decisions.

Conclusions

In this patient-centric climate, it is important to acknowledge that patients may value outcomes such as achieving greater peace of mind above other clinical factors and are willing to incur additional risks to achieve these goals. Shared decision-making will help to reveal the rationale underlying each individual’s treatment choice, which in turn will allow physicians to appropriately weigh patient requests with the best available medical evidence when counseling women on decision-making for breast cancer care.

Notes

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yao K, Stewart AK, Winchester DJ, Winchester DP. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pesce C, Liederbach E, Wang C, Lapin B, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy provides no survival benefit in young women with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fayanju OM, Stoll CR, Fowler S, Colditz GA, Margenthaler JA. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;260:1000–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(11):CD002748.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barton MB, West CN, Liu IL, et al. Complications following bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005:61–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewster AM, Parker PA. Current knowledge on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women with sporadic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16:935–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tracy MS, Rosenberg SM, Dominici L, Partridge AH. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with breast cancer: trends, predictors, and areas for future research. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchanan PJ, Abdulghani M, Waljee JF, et al. An analysis of the decisions made for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agarwal S, Kidwell KM, Kraft CT, et al. Defining the relationship between patient decisions to undergo breast reconstruction and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:661–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Covelli AM, Baxter NN, Fitch MI, McCready DR, Wright FC. “Taking control of cancer”: understanding women’s choice for mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Covelli AM, Baxter NN, Fitch MI, Wright FC. Increasing mastectomy rates: the effect of environmental factors on the choice for mastectomy: a comparative analysis between Canada and the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashfaq A, McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, et al. Impact of breast reconstruction on the decision to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2934–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greener JR, Bass SB, Lepore SJ. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a qualitative approach to exploring the decision-making process. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2018;36:145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Houn F, Helzlsouer KJ, Friedman NB, Stefanek ME. The practice of prophylactic mastectomy: a survey of Maryland surgeons. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:801–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nahabedian MY. Managing the opposite breast: contralateral symmetry procedures. Cancer J. 2008;14:258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th ed. Oxford University Press, New York. 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teven CM, Grant SB. Plastic surgery’s contributions to surgical ethics. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20:349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sterodimas A, Radwanski HN, Pitanguy I. Ethical issues in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35:262–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fu Y, Zhuang Z, Dewing M, Apple S, Chang H. Predictors for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in breast cancer patients. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8:3748–64.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sabel MS, Dal Cin S. Trends in media reports of celebrities’ breast cancer treatment decisions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2795–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown SL, Whiting D, Fielden HG, et al. Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally motivated patient requests. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0178392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, et al. Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy (CPM) Consensus Statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: data on cpm outcomes and risks. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3100–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy consensus statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: additional considerations and a framework for shared decision making. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3106–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wright FC, Look Hong NJ, Quan ML, et al. Indications for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a consensus statement using modified Delphi methodology. Ann Surg. 2018;267:271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawrence DJ. The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. J Chiropr Human. 2007;14:34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bellavance E, Peppercorn J, Kronsberg S, et al. Surgeons’ perspectives of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2779–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C. Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgment: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:163–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Angelos P, Bedrosian I, Euhus DM, Herrmann VM, Katz SJ, Pusic A. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: challenging considerations for the surgeon. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3208–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martinez KA, Kurian AW, Hawley ST, Jagsi R. How can we best respect patient autonomy in breast cancer treatment decisions? Breast Cancer Manage. 2015;4:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yao K, Sisco M, Bedrosian I. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: current perspectives. Int J Women Health. 2016;8:213–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bellavance E, Kesmodel S. Decision-making in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: factors influencing women’s choices for mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery. Front Oncol. 2016;6:74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, Weber WP, Lardi AM, Schmid SM. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: a trend made in USA? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selina Schmocker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lesley Gotlib Conn
    • 2
  • Erin D. Kennedy
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Toni Zhong
    • 5
    • 6
  • Frances C. Wright
    • 4
    • 7
  1. 1.Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive DiseasesMount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Evaluative Clinical Sciences and the Tory Trauma Research ProgramSunnybrook Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of General Surgery, Department of SurgeryMount Sinai HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Division of General Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, University Health NetworkToronto General HospitalTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Toronto, University Health NetworkToronto General HospitalTorontoCanada
  7. 7.Division of General SurgerySunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations