Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in young women with breast cancer: a population-based analysis of predictive factors and clinical impact.

Background and Objectives: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (cpm) has been increasingly common among women with unilateral invasive breast cancer (ibca) even though the data that support it are limited. Using a population-based cohort, the objectives of the present study were to describe factors predictive of cpm in young women (≤35 years) with ibca and to evaluate the impact of the procedure on mortality. Methods: All women diagnosed during 1994-2003 and treated with cpm were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Logistic regression was used to identify patient and tumour factors associated with the use of cpm. Multivariate analyses were used to assess the effect of cpm on recurrence and mortality. Results: Of 614 women identified, 81 underwent cpm (13.2%). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with cpm included negative lymph node status, negative estrogen receptor status, and initial breast-conserving surgery with re-excision. At follow-up, breast cancer-specific mortality was similar for women who did and did not undergo cpm. Conclusions: Use of cpm in young women with ibca (compared with non-use) was not associated improved breast cancer-specific mortality. Factors found to be predictive of cpm were negative lymph node status, negative estrogen receptor status, and initial breast-conserving surgery followed by re-excision.

Uptake of Cancer Screening Tests Among Recipients of Solid Organ Transplantation.

Population-based cancer screening recommendations are also suggested for solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR); however, recommendation adherence is unknown. In a population-based cohort of SOTR in Ontario between 1997 and 2010, we determined the uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening tests and identified factors associated with up-to-date screening using recurrent event analysis. We identified 4436 SOTR eligible for colorectal, 2252 for cervical, and 1551 for breast cancer screening. Of those, 3437 (77.5%), 1572 (69.8%), and 1417 (91.4%), respectively, were not up-to-date for cancer screening tests during the observation period. However, these rates are likely an overestimate due to the inability to differentiate between tests done for screening or for diagnosis. SOTR with fewer comorbidities had higher rates of becoming screen up-to-date. Assessment by a primary care provider (PCP) was associated with becoming up-to-date with cancer screening (breast relative risk [RR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.76, cervical RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.57, colorectal RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15-1.48). Similar results were observed for continuity of care by transplant specialist at a transplant center. In conclusion, cancer screening for most SOTR does not adhere to standard recommendations. Involvement of PCPs in posttransplant care and continuity of care at a transplant center may improve the uptake of screening.