Breast Cancer

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A sedentary lifestyle has already been linked with an increased risk for breast cancer based on data from observational studies, but a new study with different methodology  provides stronger evidence of causality.

The results of the new study suggest that greater overall physical activity levels, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk, said the authors.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

“Increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time are already recommended for cancer prevention. Our study adds further evidence that such behavioral changes are likely to lower the incidence of future breast cancer rates,” Suzanne C. Dixon-Suen, PhD, of Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, and colleagues reported on behalf of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The investigators used individual-level BCAC case-control data and performed two-sample Mendelian randomization – a study method that assesses causality by using genetic variants as proxies for particular risk factors. In this case, genetic variants were used as proxies for lifelong physical activity levels and sedentary behaviors.

“[Genetic] instruments were single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank [genomewide association studies] with overall physical activity (all movement), vigorous physical activity, or sedentary time” as assessed by a wrist-worn accelerometer.

Patients with greater genetic predisposition to higher overall activity levels had a 41% lower overall breast cancer risk (odds ratio, 0.59), the team reported. Genetically predicted vigorous activity was associated with a 38% lower risk of premenopausal and perimenopausal breast cancer (OR, 0.62 for 3 or more days vs. 0 days of self-reported days per week).

Conversely, greater genetically predicted sedentary time was associated with a 77%  higher risk of hormone receptor–negative breast cancer risk (OR, 1.77), including triple-negative breast cancer, for which the risk was 104% higher (OR, 2.04).

The findings were generally consistent across disease types and stages, and were unchanged after factoring in “the production by a single gene of two or more apparently unrelated effects (pleiotropy), such as smoking and overweight, for example,” according to a press release from the journal.

The investigators included data from 130,957 women of European ancestry. Of those, 69,838 had invasive disease, 6,667 had in situ tumors, and 54,452 were controls without breast cancer. The case-control groups included 23,999 pre-/perimenopausal women with invasive breast cancer and 17,686 women without, and 45,839 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 36,766 without.

A number of plausible biological explanations for the findings exist, the authors noted, adding that convincing evidence suggests there are causal pathways between physical activity and breast cancer risk, including overweight and obesity, disordered metabolism, sex hormones, and inflammation.

Furthermore, the researchers reported, “mechanisms linking sedentary time and cancer are likely to at least partially overlap with those underpinning the physical activity relationship.”

For the future, they suggested that “[a] stronger cancer-control focus on physical activity and sedentary time as modifiable cancer risk factors is warranted, given the heavy burden of disease attributed to the most common cancer in women.”

This study was funded by multiple international sources. Dr. Dixon-Suen reported no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with industry.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.

She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.

As the anesthesia took effect he said, “I’ll just leave a little extra skin, in case you change your mind.”

The last thing she remembers is telling him “no.”

When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.

“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.

Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
 

The weight of flat denial

In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.

But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.

But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.

This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.

“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.

Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.

“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”

What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.

Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.

Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.

“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”

Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.

Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.

“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”

Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
 

An evolving awareness

National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.

One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.

“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.

But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.

In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.

“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.

Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”

To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.

And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
 

A shift toward aesthetics

Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.

The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.

“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”

Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.

“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.

“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.

But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.

Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.

Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.

For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.

But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.

Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.

In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”

And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”

Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.

Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”

In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”

But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.

“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”

Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.

“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.

She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.

As the anesthesia took effect he said, “I’ll just leave a little extra skin, in case you change your mind.”

The last thing she remembers is telling him “no.”

When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.

“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.

Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
 

The weight of flat denial

In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.

But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.

But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.

This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.

“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.

Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.

“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”

What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.

Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.

Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.

“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”

Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.

Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.

“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”

Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
 

An evolving awareness

National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.

One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.

“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.

But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.

In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.

“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.

Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”

To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.

And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
 

A shift toward aesthetics

Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.

The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.

“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”

Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.

“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.

“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.

But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.

Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.

Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.

For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.

But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.

Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.

In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”

And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”

Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.

Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”

In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”

But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.

“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”

Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.

“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.

She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.

As the anesthesia took effect he said, “I’ll just leave a little extra skin, in case you change your mind.”

The last thing she remembers is telling him “no.”

When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.

“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.

Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
 

The weight of flat denial

In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.

But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.

But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.

This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.

“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.

Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.

“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”

What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.

Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.

Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.

“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”

Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.

Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.

“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”

Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
 

An evolving awareness

National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.

One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.

“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.

But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.

In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.

“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.

Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”

To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.

And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
 

A shift toward aesthetics

Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.

The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.

“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”

Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.

“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.

“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.

But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.

Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.

Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.

For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.

But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.

Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.

In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”

And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”

Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.

Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”

In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”

But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.

“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”

Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.

“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The drive from Texas to the clinic in Albuquerque, N.M., took 10 hours. It was mid-April of this year. There wasn’t much to see along the mostly barren stretch, and there wasn’t much for Kailee DeSpain to do aside from think about where she was going and why.

Her husband was driving. She sensed his nervous glances toward the passenger seat where she sat struggling to quiet her thoughts.

No, she wasn’t having any pain, she told him. No, she wasn’t feeling like she did the last time or the two times before that.

This pregnancy was different. It was the first in which she feared for her own life. Her fetus – Finley – had triploidy, a rare chromosomal abnormality. Because of the condition, which affects 1%-3% of pregnancies, his heart, brain, and kidneys were not developing properly.

At 19 weeks, Finley was already struggling to draw breath from lungs squeezed inside an overcrowded chest cavity. Ms. DeSpain wanted nothing more than to carry Finley to term, hold him, meet him even for a moment before saying goodbye.

But his condition meant he would likely suffocate in utero well before that. And Ms. DeSpain knew that carrying him longer would likely raise her risk of bleeding and of her blood pressure increasing to dangerous highs.

“This could kill you,” her husband told her. “Do you realize you could die bringing a baby into this world who is not going to live? I don’t want to lose you.’”

Unlike her other pregnancies, the timing of this one and the decision she faced to end it put her health in even greater danger.
 

Imminent danger

On Sept. 1, 2021, a bill went into effect in Texas that banned abortions from as early as 6 weeks’ gestation. Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) became one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. It prohibited abortions whenever a fetal heartbeat, defined by lawmakers, could be detected on an ultrasound, often before many women knew they were pregnant.

The Texas abortion law was hardly the last word on the topic. Ms. DeSpain didn’t know it on her drive to New Mexico in April, but the U.S. Supreme Court was weeks away from overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

On June 24, the Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that granted women the right to abortion.

This decision set in motion “trigger laws” in some states – laws that essentially fully banned abortions. Those states included Ms. DeSpain’s home state of Texas, where abortion is now a felony except when the life of the mother is in peril.

However, legal definitions of what qualifies as “life-threatening” remain murky.

The law is unclear, says Lisa Harris, MD, PhD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?” she asked in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. Is 25% enough? 50%? Or does a woman have to be moments from dying?

“This whole thing makes me so angry,” says Shikha Jain, MD, a medical oncologist at University of Illinois Health, Chicago. “A patient may not be experiencing an emergency right now, but if we don’t take care of the situation, it may become an emergency in 2 hours or 2 days.”

Even before the Roe v. Wade decision, pregnancy had been a high-stakes endeavor for many women. In 2019, more than 750 women died from pregnancy-related events in the United States. In 2020, that number rose to 850. Each year dozens more suffer pregnancy-related events that require lifesaving interventions.

Now, in a post-Roe world, the number of maternal deaths will likely climb as more abortion bans take effect and fewer women have access to lifesaving care, experts say. A 2021 study that compared 2017 maternal mortality rates in states with different levels of abortion restrictions found that the rate of maternal mortality was almost two times higher in states that restricted abortion access compared with those that protected it – 28.5 per 100,000 women vs. 15.7.

Some women living in states with abortion bans won’t have the resources to cross state lines for care.

“This is just going to widen the health care disparities that are already so prevalent in this country,” Dr. Jain says.
 

Navigating a crossroads

Ms. DeSpain’s medical history reads like a checklist of pregnancy-related perils: chronic high blood pressure, persistent clotting problems, and a high risk of hemorrhage. She was also diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2020, which left her body more fragile.

Cardiovascular conditions, including hypertension and hemorrhage, are the leading causes of maternal mortality, responsible for more than one-third of pregnancy-related deaths. Preeclampsia, characterized by high blood pressure, accounts for more than 7% of maternal deaths in the United States. Although less common, genetic disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy and triploidy, or cancer during pregnancy can put a mother and fetus at risk.

Cancer – which affects about 1 in 1,000 pregnant women and results in termination in as many as 28% of cases – brings sharp focus to the new dangers and complex decision-making patients and their doctors face as abortion bans take hold.

Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with cancer was already facing great uncertainty. The decision to treat cancer during pregnancy involves “weighing the risk of exposing the fetus to medication vs. the risk to the mother’s untreated illness if you don’t expose the fetus to medication,” Elyce Cardonick, MD, an obstetrician at Cooper University Health Care, Camden, N.J., who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, told the National Cancer Institute.

Oncologists generally agree that it’s safe for pregnant women to receive chemotherapy during the second and third trimesters. But for women with aggressive cancers that are diagnosed in the first trimester, chemotherapy is dangerous. For women who need immunotherapy, the risks of treatment remain unclear.

In these cases, Alice S. Mims, MD, must broach the possibility of terminating the pregnancy.

“Cancer is a very urgent condition,” says Dr. Mims, a hematology specialist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, who sees patients who are pregnant. “These women may have other children at home, and they want to do their best to fight the disease so they can be around for their family long term.”

Now the changing legal landscape on abortion will put hundreds more pregnant women with cancer in danger. In a recent viewpoint article published in JAMA Oncology, Jordyn Silverstein and Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, estimate that during the next year, up to 420 pregnant women living in states with restricted abortion access will face threats to their cancer care and potentially their life.

“The repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade – and the failure of the Supreme Court to provide any guidance on exceptions related to the life and health of the mother – are potentially catastrophic for a subset of women who face a life-threating diagnosis of [pregnancy-associated cancer],” they write.

The choice Ms. DeSpain faced after her cervical cancer diagnosis was different. She was not pregnant at the time, but she was at a crossroads.

Although it was caught early, the cancer was aggressive. Her oncologist recommended that she undergo a hysterectomy – the surgery that would give her the best chance for a cancer-free future. It would also mean she could no longer become pregnant.

With a less invasive procedure, on the other hand, she could still carry a child, but she would face a much greater chance that the cancer would come back.

At 27, Ms. DeSpain was not ready to close the pregnancy door. She opted for a surgery in which part of her cervix was removed, allowing her to try for another baby.

But she faced a ticking clock in the event her cancer returned.

If you want to have a baby, “try soon,” her doctor warned.
 

A dead end

After her cancer surgery and a third miscarriage, Ms. DeSpain and her husband were surprised and excited when in late 2021 she again became pregnant.

The first trimester seemed blissfully uneventful. As the weeks passed, Finley’s heart started to beat.

But the 16-week ultrasound signaled a turning point. The sonographer was too quiet.

“This is really bad, isn’t it?” Ms. DeSpain asked her sonographer.

The doctors told her he wouldn’t survive. Finley had no heart chambers. His heart couldn’t pump blood properly. He was missing one kidney, and his brain was split in the back. With almost no amniotic fluid, her doctor said he would likely die in utero, crushed to death without support from the protective liquid.

She fought for him anyway. She sought specialty care, followed bed rest orders, and traveled 3 hours to Houston to enroll in a clinical trial.

But every road was a dead end.

Ultimately, testing revealed Finley had triploidy, and all lines led to one point.

“There were too many things wrong, too much wrong for them to fix,” says Ms. DeSpain, recalling the news from her doctor in Houston. “I was in shock. My husband was just sitting with his hands flat on the table, staring at nothing, shaking a little bit.”

However, Finley still had a heartbeat, making an abortion after 6 weeks a felony in Texas. Even a compassionate induction was now out of the question unless her death was imminent.

Ms. DeSpain called the abortion clinic in Albuquerque and made an appointment. She would have to wait 2 weeks because of an influx of pregnant patients coming from Texas.

She welcomed the wait … just in case she changed her mind.

“At that point I wanted to carry him as far as I could,” she says.

For those 2 weeks, Ms. DeSpain remained on bed rest. She cried all day every day. She worried that Finley was experiencing pain.

Through this process, her doctor’s support helped keep her grounded.

“She cried with us in her office and said, ‘I wish that you didn’t have to go, but I think you’re doing the right thing, doing what keeps you safest,’ “ Ms. DeSpain recalls.

Ms. DeSpain declined to share the name of her doctor out of fear that even expressing compassion for a patient’s safety could put the physician in legal jeopardy and provoke harassment.

That fear is warranted. Some doctors will be forced to choose between doing what is legal – even though the law is vague – and doing what is right for patients, says law professor Jamie Abrams, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

To live in a world where there’s talk of criminalizing doctors for taking care of their patients, where there’s “this national movement to position some women to be shunned and exiled for seeking care that’s right for them, their health, and might save their life is staggering and beyond comprehension,” says Ms. Abrams, professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law.

Ms. Abrams, who was diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive invasive breast cancer the same day she read the leaked Supreme Court draft on the decision to end of Roe v. Wade, said that “overnight, I became a person who would need an abortion if I became pregnant, because my treatment would compromise a healthy birth or delay necessary cancer care.” Ms. Abrams was also told she could no longer use hormonal contraception.

Dr. Harris’s advice to clinicians is to try to do what they feel is best for patients, including referring them to centers that have legal resources and protections regarding abortions.

Dr. Mims agrees and recommends that doctors reach out to those with more resources and legal backing for support. “I would advise doctors in [states with restrictive laws] to familiarize themselves with available resources and organizations taking action to deal with questionable cases,” Dr. Mims says.
 

‘Baby killers work here’

Following her 10-hour drive to Albuquerque, Ms. DeSpain encountered lines of protesters at the clinic. They were holding signs that said, “Abortion is murder,” and “Baby killers work here.”

“Please don’t kill your baby – we have resources for you,” a woman screeched through a megaphone as Ms. DeSpain, nearly 20 weeks’ pregnant, stepped out of the car to enter the clinic.

“I remember turning around, looking at her and making eye contact, and yelling back, ‘My baby has triploidy – he is dying! He is going to suffocate if I carry him full term. You don’t know what you’re talking about!’ “

A nurse held her hand during the procedure.

“He said, ‘You’re doing great, you’re okay,’ “ she recalls. She knew there was a chance that Finley’s face would be crushed by contractions during labor because of the lack of amniotic fluid, but she hoped not. Ms. DeSpain longed for a photo.

There was no photo to take home the next day, but Ms. DeSpain did receive Finley’s footprints, and his heartbeat – as captured by the specialty team in Houston – lives on in a stuffed giraffe.

His ashes arrived a few weeks later.

By then, the Supreme Court draft had been leaked. Ms. DeSpain knew her predicament in Texas would soon affect women across the United States and make any future pregnancy attempt for her even more risky.

The weeks and months that followed were a blur of grief, anger, and medical testing.

But she received some good news. A second triploidy pregnancy was extremely unlikely.

Several weeks later, Ms. DeSpain got more good news.

“I had a follow-up cancer appointment, and everything was completely clear,” she says.

She remains hopeful that she will be able to give birth, but her doctor cautioned that it’s no longer safe to become pregnant in Texas.

“I need you to understand that if you get pregnant and you have complications, we can’t intervene unless the baby doesn’t have a heartbeat, even if it would save your life,” Ms. DeSpain recalls her doctor saying.

If Texas remains a dangerous place to be pregnant, Ms. DeSpain and her husband will have to move.

For now, Ms. DeSpain wants people to know her story and to continue to fight for her right to govern her body.

In a public post to Facebook, she laid bare her pregnancy journey.

“No one should have to share a story like mine to justify abortion,” she wrote. “My choice is not yours to judge, and my rights are not yours to gleefully take away.”

Ms. Abrams, Ms. DeSpain, Dr. Harris, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Mims have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The drive from Texas to the clinic in Albuquerque, N.M., took 10 hours. It was mid-April of this year. There wasn’t much to see along the mostly barren stretch, and there wasn’t much for Kailee DeSpain to do aside from think about where she was going and why.

Her husband was driving. She sensed his nervous glances toward the passenger seat where she sat struggling to quiet her thoughts.

No, she wasn’t having any pain, she told him. No, she wasn’t feeling like she did the last time or the two times before that.

This pregnancy was different. It was the first in which she feared for her own life. Her fetus – Finley – had triploidy, a rare chromosomal abnormality. Because of the condition, which affects 1%-3% of pregnancies, his heart, brain, and kidneys were not developing properly.

At 19 weeks, Finley was already struggling to draw breath from lungs squeezed inside an overcrowded chest cavity. Ms. DeSpain wanted nothing more than to carry Finley to term, hold him, meet him even for a moment before saying goodbye.

But his condition meant he would likely suffocate in utero well before that. And Ms. DeSpain knew that carrying him longer would likely raise her risk of bleeding and of her blood pressure increasing to dangerous highs.

“This could kill you,” her husband told her. “Do you realize you could die bringing a baby into this world who is not going to live? I don’t want to lose you.’”

Unlike her other pregnancies, the timing of this one and the decision she faced to end it put her health in even greater danger.
 

Imminent danger

On Sept. 1, 2021, a bill went into effect in Texas that banned abortions from as early as 6 weeks’ gestation. Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) became one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. It prohibited abortions whenever a fetal heartbeat, defined by lawmakers, could be detected on an ultrasound, often before many women knew they were pregnant.

The Texas abortion law was hardly the last word on the topic. Ms. DeSpain didn’t know it on her drive to New Mexico in April, but the U.S. Supreme Court was weeks away from overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

On June 24, the Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that granted women the right to abortion.

This decision set in motion “trigger laws” in some states – laws that essentially fully banned abortions. Those states included Ms. DeSpain’s home state of Texas, where abortion is now a felony except when the life of the mother is in peril.

However, legal definitions of what qualifies as “life-threatening” remain murky.

The law is unclear, says Lisa Harris, MD, PhD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?” she asked in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. Is 25% enough? 50%? Or does a woman have to be moments from dying?

“This whole thing makes me so angry,” says Shikha Jain, MD, a medical oncologist at University of Illinois Health, Chicago. “A patient may not be experiencing an emergency right now, but if we don’t take care of the situation, it may become an emergency in 2 hours or 2 days.”

Even before the Roe v. Wade decision, pregnancy had been a high-stakes endeavor for many women. In 2019, more than 750 women died from pregnancy-related events in the United States. In 2020, that number rose to 850. Each year dozens more suffer pregnancy-related events that require lifesaving interventions.

Now, in a post-Roe world, the number of maternal deaths will likely climb as more abortion bans take effect and fewer women have access to lifesaving care, experts say. A 2021 study that compared 2017 maternal mortality rates in states with different levels of abortion restrictions found that the rate of maternal mortality was almost two times higher in states that restricted abortion access compared with those that protected it – 28.5 per 100,000 women vs. 15.7.

Some women living in states with abortion bans won’t have the resources to cross state lines for care.

“This is just going to widen the health care disparities that are already so prevalent in this country,” Dr. Jain says.
 

Navigating a crossroads

Ms. DeSpain’s medical history reads like a checklist of pregnancy-related perils: chronic high blood pressure, persistent clotting problems, and a high risk of hemorrhage. She was also diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2020, which left her body more fragile.

Cardiovascular conditions, including hypertension and hemorrhage, are the leading causes of maternal mortality, responsible for more than one-third of pregnancy-related deaths. Preeclampsia, characterized by high blood pressure, accounts for more than 7% of maternal deaths in the United States. Although less common, genetic disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy and triploidy, or cancer during pregnancy can put a mother and fetus at risk.

Cancer – which affects about 1 in 1,000 pregnant women and results in termination in as many as 28% of cases – brings sharp focus to the new dangers and complex decision-making patients and their doctors face as abortion bans take hold.

Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with cancer was already facing great uncertainty. The decision to treat cancer during pregnancy involves “weighing the risk of exposing the fetus to medication vs. the risk to the mother’s untreated illness if you don’t expose the fetus to medication,” Elyce Cardonick, MD, an obstetrician at Cooper University Health Care, Camden, N.J., who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, told the National Cancer Institute.

Oncologists generally agree that it’s safe for pregnant women to receive chemotherapy during the second and third trimesters. But for women with aggressive cancers that are diagnosed in the first trimester, chemotherapy is dangerous. For women who need immunotherapy, the risks of treatment remain unclear.

In these cases, Alice S. Mims, MD, must broach the possibility of terminating the pregnancy.

“Cancer is a very urgent condition,” says Dr. Mims, a hematology specialist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, who sees patients who are pregnant. “These women may have other children at home, and they want to do their best to fight the disease so they can be around for their family long term.”

Now the changing legal landscape on abortion will put hundreds more pregnant women with cancer in danger. In a recent viewpoint article published in JAMA Oncology, Jordyn Silverstein and Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, estimate that during the next year, up to 420 pregnant women living in states with restricted abortion access will face threats to their cancer care and potentially their life.

“The repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade – and the failure of the Supreme Court to provide any guidance on exceptions related to the life and health of the mother – are potentially catastrophic for a subset of women who face a life-threating diagnosis of [pregnancy-associated cancer],” they write.

The choice Ms. DeSpain faced after her cervical cancer diagnosis was different. She was not pregnant at the time, but she was at a crossroads.

Although it was caught early, the cancer was aggressive. Her oncologist recommended that she undergo a hysterectomy – the surgery that would give her the best chance for a cancer-free future. It would also mean she could no longer become pregnant.

With a less invasive procedure, on the other hand, she could still carry a child, but she would face a much greater chance that the cancer would come back.

At 27, Ms. DeSpain was not ready to close the pregnancy door. She opted for a surgery in which part of her cervix was removed, allowing her to try for another baby.

But she faced a ticking clock in the event her cancer returned.

If you want to have a baby, “try soon,” her doctor warned.
 

A dead end

After her cancer surgery and a third miscarriage, Ms. DeSpain and her husband were surprised and excited when in late 2021 she again became pregnant.

The first trimester seemed blissfully uneventful. As the weeks passed, Finley’s heart started to beat.

But the 16-week ultrasound signaled a turning point. The sonographer was too quiet.

“This is really bad, isn’t it?” Ms. DeSpain asked her sonographer.

The doctors told her he wouldn’t survive. Finley had no heart chambers. His heart couldn’t pump blood properly. He was missing one kidney, and his brain was split in the back. With almost no amniotic fluid, her doctor said he would likely die in utero, crushed to death without support from the protective liquid.

She fought for him anyway. She sought specialty care, followed bed rest orders, and traveled 3 hours to Houston to enroll in a clinical trial.

But every road was a dead end.

Ultimately, testing revealed Finley had triploidy, and all lines led to one point.

“There were too many things wrong, too much wrong for them to fix,” says Ms. DeSpain, recalling the news from her doctor in Houston. “I was in shock. My husband was just sitting with his hands flat on the table, staring at nothing, shaking a little bit.”

However, Finley still had a heartbeat, making an abortion after 6 weeks a felony in Texas. Even a compassionate induction was now out of the question unless her death was imminent.

Ms. DeSpain called the abortion clinic in Albuquerque and made an appointment. She would have to wait 2 weeks because of an influx of pregnant patients coming from Texas.

She welcomed the wait … just in case she changed her mind.

“At that point I wanted to carry him as far as I could,” she says.

For those 2 weeks, Ms. DeSpain remained on bed rest. She cried all day every day. She worried that Finley was experiencing pain.

Through this process, her doctor’s support helped keep her grounded.

“She cried with us in her office and said, ‘I wish that you didn’t have to go, but I think you’re doing the right thing, doing what keeps you safest,’ “ Ms. DeSpain recalls.

Ms. DeSpain declined to share the name of her doctor out of fear that even expressing compassion for a patient’s safety could put the physician in legal jeopardy and provoke harassment.

That fear is warranted. Some doctors will be forced to choose between doing what is legal – even though the law is vague – and doing what is right for patients, says law professor Jamie Abrams, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

To live in a world where there’s talk of criminalizing doctors for taking care of their patients, where there’s “this national movement to position some women to be shunned and exiled for seeking care that’s right for them, their health, and might save their life is staggering and beyond comprehension,” says Ms. Abrams, professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law.

Ms. Abrams, who was diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive invasive breast cancer the same day she read the leaked Supreme Court draft on the decision to end of Roe v. Wade, said that “overnight, I became a person who would need an abortion if I became pregnant, because my treatment would compromise a healthy birth or delay necessary cancer care.” Ms. Abrams was also told she could no longer use hormonal contraception.

Dr. Harris’s advice to clinicians is to try to do what they feel is best for patients, including referring them to centers that have legal resources and protections regarding abortions.

Dr. Mims agrees and recommends that doctors reach out to those with more resources and legal backing for support. “I would advise doctors in [states with restrictive laws] to familiarize themselves with available resources and organizations taking action to deal with questionable cases,” Dr. Mims says.
 

‘Baby killers work here’

Following her 10-hour drive to Albuquerque, Ms. DeSpain encountered lines of protesters at the clinic. They were holding signs that said, “Abortion is murder,” and “Baby killers work here.”

“Please don’t kill your baby – we have resources for you,” a woman screeched through a megaphone as Ms. DeSpain, nearly 20 weeks’ pregnant, stepped out of the car to enter the clinic.

“I remember turning around, looking at her and making eye contact, and yelling back, ‘My baby has triploidy – he is dying! He is going to suffocate if I carry him full term. You don’t know what you’re talking about!’ “

A nurse held her hand during the procedure.

“He said, ‘You’re doing great, you’re okay,’ “ she recalls. She knew there was a chance that Finley’s face would be crushed by contractions during labor because of the lack of amniotic fluid, but she hoped not. Ms. DeSpain longed for a photo.

There was no photo to take home the next day, but Ms. DeSpain did receive Finley’s footprints, and his heartbeat – as captured by the specialty team in Houston – lives on in a stuffed giraffe.

His ashes arrived a few weeks later.

By then, the Supreme Court draft had been leaked. Ms. DeSpain knew her predicament in Texas would soon affect women across the United States and make any future pregnancy attempt for her even more risky.

The weeks and months that followed were a blur of grief, anger, and medical testing.

But she received some good news. A second triploidy pregnancy was extremely unlikely.

Several weeks later, Ms. DeSpain got more good news.

“I had a follow-up cancer appointment, and everything was completely clear,” she says.

She remains hopeful that she will be able to give birth, but her doctor cautioned that it’s no longer safe to become pregnant in Texas.

“I need you to understand that if you get pregnant and you have complications, we can’t intervene unless the baby doesn’t have a heartbeat, even if it would save your life,” Ms. DeSpain recalls her doctor saying.

If Texas remains a dangerous place to be pregnant, Ms. DeSpain and her husband will have to move.

For now, Ms. DeSpain wants people to know her story and to continue to fight for her right to govern her body.

In a public post to Facebook, she laid bare her pregnancy journey.

“No one should have to share a story like mine to justify abortion,” she wrote. “My choice is not yours to judge, and my rights are not yours to gleefully take away.”

Ms. Abrams, Ms. DeSpain, Dr. Harris, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Mims have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The drive from Texas to the clinic in Albuquerque, N.M., took 10 hours. It was mid-April of this year. There wasn’t much to see along the mostly barren stretch, and there wasn’t much for Kailee DeSpain to do aside from think about where she was going and why.

Her husband was driving. She sensed his nervous glances toward the passenger seat where she sat struggling to quiet her thoughts.

No, she wasn’t having any pain, she told him. No, she wasn’t feeling like she did the last time or the two times before that.

This pregnancy was different. It was the first in which she feared for her own life. Her fetus – Finley – had triploidy, a rare chromosomal abnormality. Because of the condition, which affects 1%-3% of pregnancies, his heart, brain, and kidneys were not developing properly.

At 19 weeks, Finley was already struggling to draw breath from lungs squeezed inside an overcrowded chest cavity. Ms. DeSpain wanted nothing more than to carry Finley to term, hold him, meet him even for a moment before saying goodbye.

But his condition meant he would likely suffocate in utero well before that. And Ms. DeSpain knew that carrying him longer would likely raise her risk of bleeding and of her blood pressure increasing to dangerous highs.

“This could kill you,” her husband told her. “Do you realize you could die bringing a baby into this world who is not going to live? I don’t want to lose you.’”

Unlike her other pregnancies, the timing of this one and the decision she faced to end it put her health in even greater danger.
 

Imminent danger

On Sept. 1, 2021, a bill went into effect in Texas that banned abortions from as early as 6 weeks’ gestation. Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) became one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. It prohibited abortions whenever a fetal heartbeat, defined by lawmakers, could be detected on an ultrasound, often before many women knew they were pregnant.

The Texas abortion law was hardly the last word on the topic. Ms. DeSpain didn’t know it on her drive to New Mexico in April, but the U.S. Supreme Court was weeks away from overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

On June 24, the Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that granted women the right to abortion.

This decision set in motion “trigger laws” in some states – laws that essentially fully banned abortions. Those states included Ms. DeSpain’s home state of Texas, where abortion is now a felony except when the life of the mother is in peril.

However, legal definitions of what qualifies as “life-threatening” remain murky.

The law is unclear, says Lisa Harris, MD, PhD, professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?” she asked in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. Is 25% enough? 50%? Or does a woman have to be moments from dying?

“This whole thing makes me so angry,” says Shikha Jain, MD, a medical oncologist at University of Illinois Health, Chicago. “A patient may not be experiencing an emergency right now, but if we don’t take care of the situation, it may become an emergency in 2 hours or 2 days.”

Even before the Roe v. Wade decision, pregnancy had been a high-stakes endeavor for many women. In 2019, more than 750 women died from pregnancy-related events in the United States. In 2020, that number rose to 850. Each year dozens more suffer pregnancy-related events that require lifesaving interventions.

Now, in a post-Roe world, the number of maternal deaths will likely climb as more abortion bans take effect and fewer women have access to lifesaving care, experts say. A 2021 study that compared 2017 maternal mortality rates in states with different levels of abortion restrictions found that the rate of maternal mortality was almost two times higher in states that restricted abortion access compared with those that protected it – 28.5 per 100,000 women vs. 15.7.

Some women living in states with abortion bans won’t have the resources to cross state lines for care.

“This is just going to widen the health care disparities that are already so prevalent in this country,” Dr. Jain says.
 

Navigating a crossroads

Ms. DeSpain’s medical history reads like a checklist of pregnancy-related perils: chronic high blood pressure, persistent clotting problems, and a high risk of hemorrhage. She was also diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2020, which left her body more fragile.

Cardiovascular conditions, including hypertension and hemorrhage, are the leading causes of maternal mortality, responsible for more than one-third of pregnancy-related deaths. Preeclampsia, characterized by high blood pressure, accounts for more than 7% of maternal deaths in the United States. Although less common, genetic disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy and triploidy, or cancer during pregnancy can put a mother and fetus at risk.

Cancer – which affects about 1 in 1,000 pregnant women and results in termination in as many as 28% of cases – brings sharp focus to the new dangers and complex decision-making patients and their doctors face as abortion bans take hold.

Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with cancer was already facing great uncertainty. The decision to treat cancer during pregnancy involves “weighing the risk of exposing the fetus to medication vs. the risk to the mother’s untreated illness if you don’t expose the fetus to medication,” Elyce Cardonick, MD, an obstetrician at Cooper University Health Care, Camden, N.J., who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, told the National Cancer Institute.

Oncologists generally agree that it’s safe for pregnant women to receive chemotherapy during the second and third trimesters. But for women with aggressive cancers that are diagnosed in the first trimester, chemotherapy is dangerous. For women who need immunotherapy, the risks of treatment remain unclear.

In these cases, Alice S. Mims, MD, must broach the possibility of terminating the pregnancy.

“Cancer is a very urgent condition,” says Dr. Mims, a hematology specialist at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, who sees patients who are pregnant. “These women may have other children at home, and they want to do their best to fight the disease so they can be around for their family long term.”

Now the changing legal landscape on abortion will put hundreds more pregnant women with cancer in danger. In a recent viewpoint article published in JAMA Oncology, Jordyn Silverstein and Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, estimate that during the next year, up to 420 pregnant women living in states with restricted abortion access will face threats to their cancer care and potentially their life.

“The repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade – and the failure of the Supreme Court to provide any guidance on exceptions related to the life and health of the mother – are potentially catastrophic for a subset of women who face a life-threating diagnosis of [pregnancy-associated cancer],” they write.

The choice Ms. DeSpain faced after her cervical cancer diagnosis was different. She was not pregnant at the time, but she was at a crossroads.

Although it was caught early, the cancer was aggressive. Her oncologist recommended that she undergo a hysterectomy – the surgery that would give her the best chance for a cancer-free future. It would also mean she could no longer become pregnant.

With a less invasive procedure, on the other hand, she could still carry a child, but she would face a much greater chance that the cancer would come back.

At 27, Ms. DeSpain was not ready to close the pregnancy door. She opted for a surgery in which part of her cervix was removed, allowing her to try for another baby.

But she faced a ticking clock in the event her cancer returned.

If you want to have a baby, “try soon,” her doctor warned.
 

A dead end

After her cancer surgery and a third miscarriage, Ms. DeSpain and her husband were surprised and excited when in late 2021 she again became pregnant.

The first trimester seemed blissfully uneventful. As the weeks passed, Finley’s heart started to beat.

But the 16-week ultrasound signaled a turning point. The sonographer was too quiet.

“This is really bad, isn’t it?” Ms. DeSpain asked her sonographer.

The doctors told her he wouldn’t survive. Finley had no heart chambers. His heart couldn’t pump blood properly. He was missing one kidney, and his brain was split in the back. With almost no amniotic fluid, her doctor said he would likely die in utero, crushed to death without support from the protective liquid.

She fought for him anyway. She sought specialty care, followed bed rest orders, and traveled 3 hours to Houston to enroll in a clinical trial.

But every road was a dead end.

Ultimately, testing revealed Finley had triploidy, and all lines led to one point.

“There were too many things wrong, too much wrong for them to fix,” says Ms. DeSpain, recalling the news from her doctor in Houston. “I was in shock. My husband was just sitting with his hands flat on the table, staring at nothing, shaking a little bit.”

However, Finley still had a heartbeat, making an abortion after 6 weeks a felony in Texas. Even a compassionate induction was now out of the question unless her death was imminent.

Ms. DeSpain called the abortion clinic in Albuquerque and made an appointment. She would have to wait 2 weeks because of an influx of pregnant patients coming from Texas.

She welcomed the wait … just in case she changed her mind.

“At that point I wanted to carry him as far as I could,” she says.

For those 2 weeks, Ms. DeSpain remained on bed rest. She cried all day every day. She worried that Finley was experiencing pain.

Through this process, her doctor’s support helped keep her grounded.

“She cried with us in her office and said, ‘I wish that you didn’t have to go, but I think you’re doing the right thing, doing what keeps you safest,’ “ Ms. DeSpain recalls.

Ms. DeSpain declined to share the name of her doctor out of fear that even expressing compassion for a patient’s safety could put the physician in legal jeopardy and provoke harassment.

That fear is warranted. Some doctors will be forced to choose between doing what is legal – even though the law is vague – and doing what is right for patients, says law professor Jamie Abrams, who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

To live in a world where there’s talk of criminalizing doctors for taking care of their patients, where there’s “this national movement to position some women to be shunned and exiled for seeking care that’s right for them, their health, and might save their life is staggering and beyond comprehension,” says Ms. Abrams, professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law.

Ms. Abrams, who was diagnosed with hormone receptor–positive invasive breast cancer the same day she read the leaked Supreme Court draft on the decision to end of Roe v. Wade, said that “overnight, I became a person who would need an abortion if I became pregnant, because my treatment would compromise a healthy birth or delay necessary cancer care.” Ms. Abrams was also told she could no longer use hormonal contraception.

Dr. Harris’s advice to clinicians is to try to do what they feel is best for patients, including referring them to centers that have legal resources and protections regarding abortions.

Dr. Mims agrees and recommends that doctors reach out to those with more resources and legal backing for support. “I would advise doctors in [states with restrictive laws] to familiarize themselves with available resources and organizations taking action to deal with questionable cases,” Dr. Mims says.
 

‘Baby killers work here’

Following her 10-hour drive to Albuquerque, Ms. DeSpain encountered lines of protesters at the clinic. They were holding signs that said, “Abortion is murder,” and “Baby killers work here.”

“Please don’t kill your baby – we have resources for you,” a woman screeched through a megaphone as Ms. DeSpain, nearly 20 weeks’ pregnant, stepped out of the car to enter the clinic.

“I remember turning around, looking at her and making eye contact, and yelling back, ‘My baby has triploidy – he is dying! He is going to suffocate if I carry him full term. You don’t know what you’re talking about!’ “

A nurse held her hand during the procedure.

“He said, ‘You’re doing great, you’re okay,’ “ she recalls. She knew there was a chance that Finley’s face would be crushed by contractions during labor because of the lack of amniotic fluid, but she hoped not. Ms. DeSpain longed for a photo.

There was no photo to take home the next day, but Ms. DeSpain did receive Finley’s footprints, and his heartbeat – as captured by the specialty team in Houston – lives on in a stuffed giraffe.

His ashes arrived a few weeks later.

By then, the Supreme Court draft had been leaked. Ms. DeSpain knew her predicament in Texas would soon affect women across the United States and make any future pregnancy attempt for her even more risky.

The weeks and months that followed were a blur of grief, anger, and medical testing.

But she received some good news. A second triploidy pregnancy was extremely unlikely.

Several weeks later, Ms. DeSpain got more good news.

“I had a follow-up cancer appointment, and everything was completely clear,” she says.

She remains hopeful that she will be able to give birth, but her doctor cautioned that it’s no longer safe to become pregnant in Texas.

“I need you to understand that if you get pregnant and you have complications, we can’t intervene unless the baby doesn’t have a heartbeat, even if it would save your life,” Ms. DeSpain recalls her doctor saying.

If Texas remains a dangerous place to be pregnant, Ms. DeSpain and her husband will have to move.

For now, Ms. DeSpain wants people to know her story and to continue to fight for her right to govern her body.

In a public post to Facebook, she laid bare her pregnancy journey.

“No one should have to share a story like mine to justify abortion,” she wrote. “My choice is not yours to judge, and my rights are not yours to gleefully take away.”

Ms. Abrams, Ms. DeSpain, Dr. Harris, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Mims have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.