Next Article in Journal
Snoring Index and Neck Circumference as Predictors of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of Ultrasound and Ki–67 Proliferation Index to Predict Breast Cancer Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Alijanzadeh et al. Measurement Invariance and Differential Item Functioning of the Health Literacy Instrument for Adults (HELIA): A Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Study in Iran. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2064
Previous Article in Special Issue
Breast Cancer—How Can Imaging Help?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Current Considerations in Surgical Treatment for Adolescents and Young Women with Breast Cancer

by
Brittany L. Murphy
1,2,*,
Alicia Pereslucha
2 and
Judy C. Boughey
3
1
Department of Surgical Oncology, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Gilbert, AZ 85234, USA
2
Department of Surgery, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA
3
Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(12), 2542; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122542
Submission received: 22 September 2022 / Revised: 6 December 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Breast Cancer)

Abstract

:
Adolescents and young women (AYA) with breast cancer represent a unique patient population, compared to the general population with breast cancer. We performed a literature review to evaluate the factors that influenced the surgical outcomes in this patient population. Fifty-two studies were identified, which evaluated breast surgery type, axillary surgery, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), surgical timing, psychological factors, disparities, and imaging use. AYA patients had equivalent oncologic outcomes with breast conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy. CPM did not improve survival. There are limited data on axillary management in the AYA population, and while more data would be beneficial, this is currently extrapolated from the general breast cancer population. A shorter time to initiate treatment correlated to better outcomes, and disparities need to be overcome for optimal outcomes. AYA patients appreciated involvement in clinical decisions, and shared decision making should be considered whenever possible. Providers must keep these factors in mind when counseling AYA patients, regarding the surgical management of breast cancer.

1. Introduction

Although accounting for only ~5.6% of invasive breast cancer cases, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women aged 18–39 (adolescents and young women (AYA)), accounting for 30% of cancers seen in this age group [1,2]. The risk factors for breast cancer development have been well established. The most cited factors include germline mutation status, mantle radiation prior to the age of 30, and factors that increase estrogen levels, including oral contraceptive use, early menarche, and parity after the age of 30 [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Other considered factors include obesity, in vitro fertilization, alcohol intake, and breast density.
In contrast to older women, in AYA patients, obesity may be a protective factor against breast cancer as there is an association with decreased hormone synthesis [10]. There has been no proven association between breast cancer risk and in vitro fertilization [11,12,13,14]. Alcohol intake increases breast cancer risk with a 10% increase in risk per 10g of ethanol consumed per day [15]. Finally, dense breast tissue and proliferative breast disease have been found to increase breast cancer risk [16,17,18].
Identifying AYA patients at risk for breast cancer development is important, as 15% of deaths caused by breast cancer occur in women younger than age 45, making breast cancer the most common cause of cancer related death in this patient population [19,20,21,22]. The high mortality from breast cancer in this patient population is likely due to both the more aggressive tumor biology and because the disease is diagnosed at a later stage, due to lack of routine screening. More AYA patients are diagnosed with stage II or III disease, compared to those over age 40. Furthermore, a greater proportion of AYA patients have triple negative breast cancer or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2) cancer than older women [23].
Previous studies have shown that a younger age is associated with a greater risk of recurrence, which is not dependent on surgery type; most of these studies, however, evaluated patients treated decades ago [24]. Furthermore, many surgical outcomes, other than oncologic outcomes, are important to consider, such as psychological factors and the impact of surgery on mental wellbeing. Therefore, we sought to perform a literature review addressing the surgical management and outcomes in AYA patients from recent publications, to gain a better understanding of the current results.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a literature review of the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases, using the search terms “breast cancer” AND “adolescent young adult women” AND “treatment”, in July 2022. The search was limited from January 2012 to July 2022. This search revealed 2479 papers. Following the exclusion of non-English articles (n = 66), the remaining selection was manually reviewed by the first author, by title and abstract. The articles that did not evaluate surgical outcomes in women ≤50 years of age, were excluded (n = 2361), leaving 52 studies for review, Figure 1. The articles were classified by surgical outcome topic: breast surgery type (n = 26), axillary surgery (n = 1), contralateral prophylactic mastectomy ((CPM) n = 9), surgical timing (n = 2), psychological impact (n = 11), disparities (n = 5), and imaging (n = 1), Table 1. Of note, four studies were included in multiple categories. The major findings of these studies are discussed herein.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Breast Surgical Procedure

Multiple landmark studies have shown the equivalent oncologic outcomes between breast conserving surgery (BCS), with radiation and mastectomy in breast cancer, in general [76]. Most of these trials, however, included only a small proportion of young patients. In our review, twenty-six papers addressed the outcomes in the AYA population, based on the breast surgery type: BCS or mastectomy. Four studies used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, with BCS rates varying between 41% and 55% [25,26,27,28]. One of these studies reported on 8656 patients, 47.7% of whom underwent BCS. A multivariable analysis revealed an improved overall survival (OS) for patients with HER2 negative disease who underwent BCS, versus mastectomy, which was thought to be related to adjuvant radiation with no significant difference seen in patients with HER2 positive disease [27]. Two of the other SEER studies also found an improved OS for BCS versus mastectomy, one of which only found this difference for patients aged 36–40, not those aged 18–35 [25,26]. The final SEER study evaluated patients with invasive lobular carcinoma, of which 41% underwent BCS and found no statistical difference in the OS outcomes by type of breast surgery [28].
Five studies evaluated data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). One study showed that BCS was associated with an improved OS, compared to a unilateral or bilateral mastectomy, whereas two studies, one evaluating invasive disease and another ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) found no difference in OS, based on the surgical procedure [29,30,31]. The rates of BCS decreased over the study period in three studies, for both patients with DCIS and invasive disease [29,32,33]. The finding of more patients choosing a mastectomy over BCS in recent years was also seen in a multicenter prospective study that evaluated BCS eligible patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy and found that the majority of patients preferred a mastectomy, independent of tumor size and regardless of treatment response [34].
Pilewskie and King performed a literature review to determine the factors that influenced the local recurrence rates in AYA patients with breast cancer. Both classic studies and modern studies were included in their review and they found that a mastectomy did not improve the recurrence rates over BCS, and furthermore, age and tumor molecular subtype were the driving forces associated with the recurrence [24]. A meta-analysis by He et al. limited to patients undergoing BCS, similarly showed age to be the biggest factor in recurrence [35]. Another meta-analysis by Chien et al. evaluated patients who underwent BCS or a mastectomy for DCIS and found lower rates of recurrence in patients who underwent a mastectomy; however, no survival benefit was found [36]. The last meta-analysis was performed by Vila et al., who evaluated outcomes in patients with invasive disease, finding no significant difference in the OS between BCS and mastectomy [37]. Similar findings were also reported in the institutional study by Cronin et al., that showed that the risk of recurrence for patients undergoing BCS for DCIS was greatest in the youngest patients [38].
Of the other evaluated studies, 10 found no difference in the OS, between BCS and mastectomy [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49] while one noted an improved disease free survival and OS with BCS [48]. A local recurrence, however, was noted to be greater in patients undergoing BCS in two studies [44,49].
Overall, BCS was not inferior to a mastectomy, in AYA patients. Some studies suggested modest improved oncologic outcomes with BCS over mastectomy. There are, however, differences in the psychological effects and time to treatment of the two procedures, which will be discussed later. Patients, if candidates for either procedure, should be educated about their surgical choices, and providers should practice shared decision making.

3.2. Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

It is well known that for allcomers with unilateral breast cancer, rates of CPM have increased in recent years [77]. We found nine studies that evaluated the performance of CPM in young women [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,73,74]. The rates of CPM in AYA patients have increased in recent years as well, with younger women being more likely to undergo a CPM than older women, with studies showing CPM being performed in up to 43% of AYA patients undergoing all types of surgery (BCS, unilateral mastectomy, or bilateral mastectomy) [54,56]. The factors associated with undergoing a CPM included, white race, negative lymph node status, estrogen receptor negativity, HER2 positivity, initial BCS with the need for re-operation due to positive margins, larger tumor size, lower body mass index, and testing positive for a germline pathogenic variant or having a strong family history of breast cancer [50,51,54,55,73]. Patients desired a CPM due to perceptions of decreased rates of future contralateral breast cancer and improved survival [74].
One study evaluated over 14,000 women aged ≤45 years with breast cancer who underwent a mastectomy from the NCDB, of which 29.7% underwent a CPM. Following adjustment for confounding variables, there was no difference in the OS between AYA women who underwent a CPM and those who did not [53]. Another study from a prospectively maintained institutional database showed no difference in OS between AYA patients who had a bilateral mastectomy or BCS, but patients with a unilateral mastectomy had a worse OS [52]. A single institution study from Mount Sinai Medical Center, however, showed an OS advantage with a CPM after 10 years of follow up [56].
Overall, there was no dominant clear evidence that a CPM improved survival in the AYA patient population. Providers should ensure that this is clear to patients, especially if impact on survival is one of the patient’s motivations for choosing a CPM.

3.3. Axillary Surgery

The use of sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery, to evaluate nodal disease in clinically node negative patients with breast cancer, has been well established. No studies were identified that focused on SLN use in the AYA population; therefore, management is the same as it is for the general population of patients with breast cancer. Previous studies that evaluated axillary nodal management in clinically node negative patients with a small volume nodal disease at the time of upfront surgery included only a small proportion of AYA patients. The youngest patient in the ACOSOG Z0011 trial was 24, but only approximately 35% of patients were under 50 years of age [78]. In the AMAROS trial, the youngest patient was 48 years old [79]. Prememopausal patients composed 31% of the patient population in the OTOASOR trial, with the youngest patient being 26 years of age [80]. In our review, only one study addressed management of the axilla for young women clinically node negative at the time of diagnosis, with one to three positive SLNs, at the time of upfront surgery. Of the 357 women included in the study, 192 underwent BCS and 165 underwent a mastectomy. Use of the completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was significantly higher in patients who underwent a mastectomy (144/165, 87%), than in patients who underwent BCS (10/192, 5.2%). Regional nodal irradiation was given to a greater proportion of patients who underwent a mastectomy than BCS (48% vs. 30%, p < 0.01) [57]. This reflects the adoption of the ACOSOG Z0011 findings into the AYA population and follows a similar trend to the general population with breast cancer [81].
These findings and the paucity of data on all aspects of axillary management in the AYA population, highlights the need for continued research, as it is possible that patients who undergo both an ALND and radiation for small volume axillary disease are being over-treated, which may contribute to additional morbidity for a limited oncologic benefit. Omission of completion ALND following a mastectomy, for a small volume nodal disease in patients who will be receiving regional nodal radiation, is slowly being accepted as standard treatment for allcomers with breast cancer [81].

3.4. Time to Treatment

Two studies addressed time to initiation of treatment. One study determined that the time to initiate treatment was longer by one week with upfront surgery, compared to the time to the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The delay was attributed to fertility preservation, as a greater proportion of patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group declined fertility preservation, although this could also be related to access to plastic surgery or access to the operating room [58]. Another study evaluated the California Cancer Registry database and determined that for patients treated with upfront surgery, a time to treatment of greater than 6 weeks was associated with an 80% 5-year survival versus a 90% 5-year survival when the time to surgery was less than 2 weeks. A greater proportion of patients undergoing BCS or a modified radical mastectomy were able to enter the operating room within 2 weeks, than a total mastectomy; reconstruction was not discussed, which can often contribute to a longer time to surgery [75].
These studies highlight that coordination of care to allow for efficient initiation of treatment is of upmost importance to AYA patients. AYA patients should be evaluated by the multidisciplinary team to determine the order of treatment, to arrange for genetic testing, and to evaluate for fertility preservation in a timely manner as to initiate treatment as soon as possible.

3.5. Psychological Effects of Surgery

Surgery creates permanent changes to a patient’s body. Eleven studies evaluated the psychological effects of breast cancer surgery on AYA patients. Multiple studies showed that a mastectomy was associated with worse quality of life factors, such as body image, sexual health, and anxiety, compared to patients who underwent BCS [59,60,61]. Many patients chose mastectomy out of fear of potentially leaving cancer cells behind and the desire to avoid future screening imaging [62]. The increased piece of mind gained from a mastectomy was similar to the reasons for why patients chose to undergo a CPM [62,63,74]. Patients who underwent a mastectomy with reconstruction had better quality of life scores with less stress and anxiety, but endorsed more physical discomfort in the post operative setting [64]. The barriers to reconstruction following a mastectomy included the fear of cancer relapse and financial concerns [65]. The physical side effects of radiation following BCS was also a concern, but the quality of life scores were shown to return to the reference ranges three years following the completion of radiation [66].
Other studies evaluated the patient role in decision making and patient education. Patients in the AYA population were found to appreciate more information about treatment options and anticipated outcomes, with worse reported quality of life scores when treatment decisions were made for them, rather than with them [67,68]. This finding again highlights the importance of shared decision making in the AYA patient population.

3.6. Disparities

Acknowledging the disparities in healthcare is important, in order to overcome the limitations. Five studies evaluated the disparities in AYA patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer [69,70,71,73,75]. As previously discussed, the timing to surgery influenced the oncologic outcomes in one study. That same study found that Hispanic and African American patients (compared to non-Hispanic white), patients with public or no insurance (compared to private insurance), and patients with a low socioeconomic status (compared to a high socioeconomic status) were more likely to have a treatment delay of greater than 6 weeks, which was associated with worse outcomes [75]. In other studies, surgical management was found to be equivalent in public and private hospitals [69]; however, race was associated with undergoing a CPM, with white women being twice as likely to undergo a CPM than women of other racial groups [73]. The oncologic outcomes were found to vary with marital status, with a survival benefit of BCS over mastectomy observed in unmarried patients [71].
The financial burden of healthcare is another important factor to consider, especially as financial concerns influence a patient’s surgical reconstruction choices, as previously discussed. A study that explored the financial toxicity determined that a younger age, non-white race, and a lower socioeconomic status, was associated with a higher financial toxicity, regardless of the actual out of pocket costs [70].
These factors must be considered when treating AYA patients, as we need to ensure equal high-quality care to all, with as minimal financial burden as possible. Providers should ensure access to social services, to help provide resources to interested patients.

3.7. Imaging

It is well known that breast cancer detection is lower in women with dense breast tissue, and dense breast tissue is associated with younger age. The COMICE trial was a randomized controlled trial that determined that a pre-surgical MRI did not reduce reoperation rates for patients undergoing BCS; however, only 23% of their patient population was under 50 years of age [82]. Park et al. evaluated patients 35 years of age or younger, who underwent treatment at a single institution, and showed that a MRI identified additional sites of disease in 13% of patients, but it did not increase mastectomy rates, and reduced reoperation rates, suggesting that MRIs should be considered in young women undergoing BCS [72].

4. Conclusions

AYA patients who are candidates for either BCS or mastectomy may undergo either procedure with equivalent outcomes. The outcomes with BCS may be optimized with a pre-operative MRI. A CPM did not improve survival and more studies are needed to determine optimal management of the axilla in the setting of low volume nodal disease at upfront surgery. Providers must keep in mind that a shorter time to initiate treatment correlates to better outcomes and disparities need to be overcome. AYA patients appreciate involvement in clinical decisions and shared decision making and should be considered whenever possible. Providers must keep these factors in mind when counseling AYA patients regarding the surgical management of breast cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.L.M., A.P. and J.C.B.; methodology, B.L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, B.L.M.; writing—review and editing, B.L.M., A.P. and J.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was exempt from institutional review board approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cathcart-Rake, E.J.; Ruddy, K.J.; Bleyer, A.; Johnson, R.H. Breast Cancer in Adolescent and Young Adult Women Under the Age of 40 Years. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2021, 17, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Johnson, R.H.; Anders, C.K.; Litton, J.K.; Ruddy, K.J.; Bleyer, A. Breast cancer in adolescents and young adults. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2018, 65, e27397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 1996, 347, 1713–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: Individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, 1141–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cadeau, C.; Fournier, A.; Mesrine, S.; Clavel-Chapelon, F.; Fagherazzi, G.; Boutron-Ruault, M.C. Postmenopausal breast cancer risk and interactions between body mass index, menopausal hormone therapy use, and vitamin D supplementation: Evidence from the E3N cohort. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 139, 2193–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Clamp, A.; Danson, S.; Clemons, M. Hormonal risk factors for breast cancer: Identification, chemoprevention, and other intervention strategies. Lancet Oncol. 2002, 3, 611–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gierisch, J.M.; Coeytaux, R.R.; Urrutia, R.P.; Havrilesky, L.J.; Moorman, P.G.; Lowery, W.J.; Dinan, M.; McBroom, A.J.; Hasselblad, V.; Sanders, G.D.; et al. Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast, cervical, colorectal, and endometrial cancers: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2013, 22, 1931–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Henderson, T.O.; Amsterdam, A.; Bhatia, S.; Hudson, M.M.; Meadows, A.T.; Neglia, J.P.; Diller, L.R.; Constine, L.S.; Smith, R.A.; Mahoney, M.C.; et al. Systematic review: Surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 152, 444–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moskowitz, C.S.; Chou, J.F.; Wolden, S.L.; Bernstein, J.L.; Malhotra, J.; Novetsky Friedman, D.; Mubdi, N.Z.; Leisenring, W.M.; Stovall, M.; Hammond, S.; et al. Breast cancer after chest radiation therapy for childhood cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 2217–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Travis, R.C.; Key, T.J. Oestrogen exposure and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. 2003, 5, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brinton, L.A.; Trabert, B.; Shalev, V.; Lunenfeld, E.; Sella, T.; Chodick, G. In vitro fertilization and risk of breast and gynecologic cancers: A retrospective cohort study within the Israeli Maccabi Healthcare Services. Fertil. Steril. 2013, 99, 1189–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Sergentanis, T.N.; Diamantaras, A.A.; Perlepe, C.; Kanavidis, P.; Skalkidou, A.; Petridou, E.T. IVF and breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update 2014, 20, 106–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. van den Belt-Dusebout, A.W.; Spaan, M.; Lambalk, C.B.; Kortman, M.; Laven, J.S.; van Santbrink, E.J.; van der Westerlaken, L.A.; Cohlen, B.J.; Braat, D.D.; Smeenk, J.M.; et al. Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization and Long-term Risk of Breast Cancer. JAMA 2016, 316, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Venn, A.; Watson, L.; Lumley, J.; Giles, G.; King, C.; Healy, D. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence after infertility and in vitro fertilisation. Lancet 1995, 346, 995–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gentilini, P.A.; Pagani, O. (Eds.) Breast Cancer in Young Women; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boyd, N.F.; Guo, H.; Martin, L.J.; Sun, L.; Stone, J.; Fishell, E.; Jong, R.A.; Hislop, G.; Chiarelli, A.; Minkin, S.; et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Dupont, W.D.; Parl, F.F.; Hartmann, W.H.; Brinton, L.A.; Winfield, A.C.; Worrell, J.A.; Schuyler, P.A.; Plummer, W.D. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 1993, 71, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hartmann, L.C.; Sellers, T.A.; Frost, M.H.; Lingle, W.L.; Degnim, A.C.; Ghosh, K.; Vierkant, R.A.; Maloney, S.D.; Pankratz, V.S.; Hillman, D.W.; et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html (accessed on 8 August 2022).
  20. Freedman, R.A.; Partridge, A.H. Management of breast cancer in very young women. Breast 2013, 22 (Suppl. 2), S176–S179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Oeffinger, K.C.; Fontham, E.T.; Etzioni, R.; Herzig, A.; Michaelson, J.S.; Shih, Y.C.; Walter, L.C.; Church, T.R.; Flowers, C.R.; LaMonte, S.J.; et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015, 314, 1599–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rosenberg, S.M.; Partridge, A.H. Management of breast cancer in very young women. Breast 2015, 24 (Suppl. 2), S154–S158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Murphy, B.L.; Day, C.N.; Hoskin, T.L.; Habermann, E.B.; Boughey, J.C. Adolescents and Young Adults with Breast Cancer have More Aggressive Disease and Treatment Than Patients in Their Forties. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 3920–3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pilewskie, M.; King, T.A. Age and molecular subtypes: Impact on surgical decisions. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 110, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sun, Z.H.; Chen, C.; Kuang, X.W.; Song, J.L.; Sun, S.R.; Wang, W.X. Breast surgery for young women with early-stage breast cancer: Mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy? Medicine 2021, 100, e25880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ye, J.C.; Yan, W.; Christos, P.J.; Nori, D.; Ravi, A. Equivalent Survival With Mastectomy or Breast-conserving Surgery Plus Radiation in Young Women Aged <40 Years With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A National Registry-based Stage-by-Stage Comparison. Clin. Breast Cancer 2015, 15, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Yu, P.; Tang, H.; Zou, Y.; Liu, P.; Tian, W.; Zhang, K.; Xie, X.; Ye, F. Breast-Conserving Therapy Versus Mastectomy in Young Breast Cancer Patients Concerning Molecular Subtypes: A SEER Population-Based Study. Cancer Control 2020, 27, 1073274820976667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yu, T.J.; Liu, Y.Y.; Hu, X.; Di, G.H. Survival following breast-conserving therapy is equal to that following mastectomy in young women with early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 1703–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Byun, D.J.; Wu, S.P.; Nagar, H.; Gerber, N.K. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in Young Women: Increasing Rates of Mastectomy and Variability in Endocrine Therapy Use. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 6083–6096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lazow, S.P.; Riba, L.; Alapati, A.; James, T.A. Comparison of breast-conserving therapy vs mastectomy in women under age 40: National trends and potential survival implications. Breast J. 2019, 25, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Orozco, J.I.J.; Keller, J.K.; Chang, S.C.; Fancher, C.E.; Grumley, J.G. Impact of Locoregional Treatment on Survival in Young Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer undergoing Upfront Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 6299–6310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pesce, C.; Liederbach, E.; Czechura, T.; Winchester, D.J.; Yao, K. Changing surgical trends in young patients with early stage breast cancer, 2003 to 2010: A report from the National Cancer Data Base. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014, 219(1), 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rutter, C.E.; Park, H.S.; Killelea, B.K.; Evans, S.B. Growing Use of Mastectomy for Ductal Carcinoma-In Situ of the Breast Among Young Women in the United States. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 2378–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kim, H.J.; Dominici, L.; Rosenberg, S.M.; Zheng, Y.; Pak, L.M.; Poorvu, P.D.; Ruddy, K.J.; Tamimi, R.; Schapira, L.; Come, S.E.; et al. Surgical Treatment After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Young Women With Breast Cancer: Results from a Prospective Cohort Study. Ann. Surg. 2022, 276, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. He, X.M.; Zou, D.H. The association of young age with local recurrence in women with early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chien, J.C.; Liu, W.S.; Huang, W.T.; Shih, L.C.; Liu, W.C.; Chen, Y.C.; Chou, K.J.; Shiue, Y.L.; Lin, P.C. Local treatment options for young women with ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing breast conserving surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy, and mastectomy. Breast 2022, 63, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vila, J.; Gandini, S.; Gentilini, O. Overall survival according to type of surgery in young (≤40 years) early breast cancer patients: A systematic meta-analysis comparing breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy. Breast 2015, 24, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cronin, P.A.; Olcese, C.; Patil, S.; Morrow, M.; Van Zee, K.J. Impact of Age on Risk of Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Outcomes of 2996 Women Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery Over 30 Years. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 2816–2824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bao, S.; He, G. Comparing the Prognoses of Breast-Conserving Surgeries for Differently Aged Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer: Use of a Propensity Score Method. Breast J. 2022, 2022, 1801717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cao, J.Q.; Truong, P.T.; Olivotto, I.A.; Olson, R.; Coulombe, G.; Keyes, M.; Weir, L.; Gelmon, K.; Bernstein, V.; Woods, R.; et al. Should women younger than 40 years of age with invasive breast cancer have a mastectomy? 15-year outcomes in a population-based cohort. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2014, 90, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, L.J.; Chang, Y.J.; Chang, Y.J. Treatment and long-term outcome of breast cancer in very young women: Nationwide population-based study. BJS Open 2021, 5, zrab087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Frandsen, J.; Ly, D.; Cannon, G.; Suneja, G.; Matsen, C.; Gaffney, D.K.; Wright, M.; Kokeny, K.E.; Poppe, M.M. In the Modern Treatment Era, Is Breast Conservation Equivalent to Mastectomy in Women Younger Than 40 Years of Age? A Multi-Institution Study. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2015, 93, 1096–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jeon, Y.W.; Choi, J.E.; Park, H.K.; Kim, K.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Suh, Y.J. Impact of local surgical treatment on survival in young women with T1 breast cancer: Long-term results of a population-based cohort. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2013, 138, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maishman, T.; Cutress, R.I.; Hernandez, A.; Gerty, S.; Copson, E.R.; Durcan, L.; Eccles, D.M. Local Recurrence and Breast Oncological Surgery in Young Women With Breast Cancer: The POSH Observational Cohort Study. Ann. Surg. 2017, 266, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Quan, M.L.; Paszat, L.F.; Fernandes, K.A.; Sutradhar, R.; McCready, D.R.; Rakovitch, E.; Warner, E.; Wright, F.C.; Hodgson, N.; Brackstone, M.; et al. The effect of surgery type on survival and recurrence in very young women with breast cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 115, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sinnadurai, S.; Kwong, A.; Hartman, M.; Tan, E.Y.; Bhoo-Pathy, N.T.; Dahlui, M.; See, M.H.; Yip, C.H.; Taib, N.A.; Bhoo-Pathy, N. Breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy in young women with breast cancer in Asian settings. BJS Open 2019, 3, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Wang, L.; He, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, T.; Xie, Y.; Fan, Z.; Ouyang, T. Comparisons of breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy in young and old women with early-stage breast cancer: Long-term results using propensity score adjustment method. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 183, 717–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Li, P.; Li, L.; Xiu, B.; Zhang, L.; Yang, B.; Chi, Y.; Xue, J.; Wu, J. The Prognoses of Young Women With Breast Cancer (≤35 years) With Different Surgical Options: A Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Cohort Study. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 795023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xie, Z.; Wang, X.; Lin, H.; Wei, W.; Liu, P.; Xiao, X.; Xie, X.; Guan, X.; Yang, M.; Tang, J. Breast-conserving therapy: A viable option for young women with early breast cancer--evidence from a prospective study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 21, 2188–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bouchard-Fortier, A.; Baxter, N.N.; Sutradhar, R.; Fernandes, K.; Camacho, X.; Graham, P.; Quan, M.L. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in young women with breast cancer: A population-based analysis of predictive factors and clinical impact. Curr. Oncol. 2018, 25, e562–e568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Dettwyler, S.A.; Thull, D.L.; McAuliffe, P.F.; Steiman, J.G.; Johnson, R.R.; Diego, E.J.; Mai, P.L. Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: Impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2022, 194, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Donovan, C.A.; Bao, J.; Gangi, A.; Amersi, F.; Zhang, X.; Giuliano, A.E.; Chung, A.P. Bilateral Mastectomy as Overtreatment for Breast Cancer in Women Age Forty Years and Younger with Unilateral Operable Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 24, 2168–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pesce, C.; Liederbach, E.; Wang, C.; Lapin, B.; Winchester, D.J.; Yao, K. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy provides no survival benefit in young women with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014, 21, 3231–3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rosenberg, S.M.; Sepucha, K.; Ruddy, K.J.; Tamimi, R.M.; Gelber, S.; Meyer, M.E.; Schapira, L.; Come, S.E.; Borges, V.F.; Golshan, M.; et al. Local Therapy Decision-Making and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 3809–3815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Terkelsen, T.; Rønning, H.; Skytte, A.B. Impact of genetic counseling on the uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among younger women with breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2020, 59, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zeichner, S.B.; Zeichner, S.B.; Ruiz, A.L.; Markward, N.J.; Rodriguez, E. Improved long-term survival with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Tadros, A.B.; Moo, T.A.; Stempel, M.; Zabor, E.C.; Khan, A.J.; Morrow, M. Axillary management for young women with breast cancer varies between patients electing breast-conservation therapy or mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 180, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guay, E.; Cordeiro, E.; Roberts, A. Young Women with Breast Cancer: Chemotherapy or Surgery First? An Evaluation of Time to Treatment for Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 2254–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Berhili, S.; Ouabdelmoumen, A.; Sbai, A.; Kebdani, T.; Benjaafar, N.; Mezouar, L. Radical Mastectomy Increases Psychological Distress in Young Breast Cancer Patients: Results of A Cross-sectional Study. Clin. Breast. Cancer 2019, 19, e160–e165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Olasehinde, O.; Arije, O.; Wuraola, F.O.; Samson, M.; Olajide, O.; Alabi, T.; Arowolo, O.; Boutin-Foster, C.; Alatise, O.I.; Kingham, T.P. Life Without a Breast: Exploring the Experiences of Young Nigerian Women After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer. J. Glob. Oncol. 2019, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rosenberg, S.M.; Dominici, L.S.; Gelber, S.; Poorvu, P.D.; Ruddy, K.J.; Wong, J.S.; Tamimi, R.M.; Schapira, L.; Come, S.; Peppercorn, J.M.; et al. Association of Breast Cancer Surgery With Quality of Life and Psychosocial Well-being in Young Breast Cancer Survivors. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rosenberg, S.M.; Greaney, M.L.; Patenaude, A.F.; Partridge, A.H. Factors Affecting Surgical Decisions in Newly Diagnosed Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 2019, 8, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rosenberg, S.M.; Greaney, M.L.; Patenaude, A.F.; Sepucha, K.R.; Meyer, M.E.; Partridge, A.H. “I don’ t want to take chances": A qualitative exploration of surgical decision making in young breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 2018, 27, 1524–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fanakidou, I.; Zyga, S.; Alikari, V.; Tsironi, M.; Stathoulis, J.; Theofilou, P. Mental health, loneliness, and illness perception outcomes in quality of life among young breast cancer patients after mastectomy: The role of breast reconstruction. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nozawa, K.; Ichimura, M.; Oshima, A.; Tokunaga, E.; Masuda, N.; Kitano, A.; Fukuuchi, A.; Shinji, O. The present state and perception of young women with breast cancer towards breast reconstructive surgery. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 20, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bantema-Joppe, E.J.; de Bock, G.H.; Woltman-van Iersel, M.; Busz, D.M.; Ranchor, A.V.; Langendijk, J.A.; Maduro, J.H.; van den Heuvel, E.R. The impact of age on changes in quality of life among breast cancer survivors treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 2015, 112, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Recio-Saucedo, A.; Gerty, S.; Foster, C.; Eccles, D.; Cutress, R.I. Information requirements of young women with breast cancer treated with mastectomy or breast conserving surgery: A systematic review. Breast 2016, 25, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Seror, V.; Cortaredona, S.; Bouhnik, A.D.; Meresse, M.; Cluze, C.; Viens, P.; Rey, D.; Peretti-Watel, P. Young breast cancer patients’ involvement in treatment decisions: The major role played by decision-making about surgery. Psychooncology 2013, 22, 2546–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Patel, A.; Wang, W.J.; Warnack, E.; Joseph, K.A.; Schnabel, F.; Axelrod, D.; Dhage, S. Surgical treatment of young women with breast cancer: Public vs private hospitals. Breast J. 2019, 25, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Politi, M.C.; Yen, R.W.; Elwyn, G.; O’ Malley, A.J.; Saunders, C.H.; Schubbe, D.; Forcino, R.; Durand, M.A. Women Who Are Young, Non-White, and with Lower Socioeconomic Status Report Higher Financial Toxicity up to 1 Year After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Mixed-Effects Regression Analysis. Oncologist 2021, 26, e142–e152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, J.; Yang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ji, F.; Gao, H.; Zhuang, X.; Li, W.; Pan, W.; Shen, B.; Zhang, T.; et al. Effects of Surgery on Prognosis of Young Women With Operable Breast Cancer in Different Marital Statuses: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 666316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Park, A.R.; Chae, E.Y.; Cha, J.H.; Shin, H.J.; Choi, W.J.; Kim, H.H. Preoperative Breast MRI in Women 35 Years of Age and Younger with Breast Cancer: Benefits in Surgical Outcomes by Using Propensity Score Analysis. Radiology 2021, 300, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Grimmer, L.; Liederbach, E.; Velasco, J.; Pesce, C.; Wang, C.H.; Yao, K. Variation in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Rates According to Racial Groups in Young Women with Breast Cancer, 1998 to 2011: A Report from the National Cancer Data Base. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2015, 221, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rosenberg, S.M.; Tracy, M.S.; Meyer, M.E.; Sepucha, K.; Gelber, S.; Hirshfield-Bartek, J.; Troyan, S.; Morrow, M.; Schapira, L.; Come, S.E.; et al. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: A cross-sectional survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 2013, 159, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Smith, E.C.; Ziogas, A.; Anton-Culver, H. Delay in surgical treatment and survival after breast cancer diagnosis in young women by race/ethnicity. JAMA Surg. 2013, 148, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Clarke, M.; Collins, R.; Darby, S.; Davies, C.; Elphinstone, P.; Evans, V.; Godwin, J.; Gray, R.; Hicks, C.; James, S.; et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005, 366, 2087–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Tuttle, T.M.; Habermann, E.B.; Grund, E.H.; Morris, T.J.; Virnig, B.A. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: A trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 5203–5209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Giuliano, A.E.; Ballman, K.V.; McCall, L.; Beitsch, P.D.; Brennan, M.B.; Kelemen, P.R.; Ollila, D.W.; Hansen, N.M.; Whitworth, P.W.; Blumencranz, P.W.; et al. Effect of Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection on 10-Year Overall Survival Among Women With Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017, 318, 918–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Donker, M.; van Tienhoven, G.; Straver, M.E.; Meijnen, P.; van de Velde, C.J.; Mansel, R.E.; Cataliotti, L.; Westenberg, A.H.; Klinkenbijl, J.H.; Orzalesi, L.; et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): A randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Sávolt, Á.; Péley, G.; Polgár, C.; Udvarhelyi, N.; Rubovszky, G.; Kovács, E.; Győrffy, B.; Kásler, M.; Mátrai, Z. Eight-year follow up result of the OTOASOR trial: The Optimal Treatment Of the Axilla-Surgery Or Radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: A randomized, single centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 43, 672–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stafford, A.P.; Hoskin, T.L.; Day, C.N.; Sanders, S.B.; Boughey, J.C. Contemporary Axillary Management in cT1-2N0 Breast Cancer with One or Two Positive Sentinel Lymph Nodes: Factors Associated with Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Within the National Cancer Database. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 4740–4749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Turnbull, L.; Brown, S.; Harvey, I.; Olivier, C.; Drew, P.; Napp, V.; Hanby, A.; Brown, J. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 375, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the included studies.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the included studies.
Healthcare 10 02542 g001
Table 1. Studies included in the literature review.
Table 1. Studies included in the literature review.
AuthorsYearJournalOutcome Evaluated
Pilewskie M, King TA [24]2014J Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Sun ZH, Chen C et al. [25]2021MedicineSurgery-Breast
Ye JC, Yan W et al. [26]2015Clin Breast CancerSurgery-Breast
Yu P, Tang H, et al. [27]2020Cancer ControlSurgery-Breast
Yu TJ, Liu YY et al. [28]2018Eur J Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Byun DJ, Wu SP, et al. [29]2021Ann Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Lazow SP, Riba L, et al. [30]2019Breast JSurgery-Breast
Orozco JI, Keller JK et al. [31]2022Ann Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Pesce CE, Liederbach E et al. [32]2014J Am Coll SurgSurgery-Breast
Rutter CE, Park HS et al. [33]2014Ann Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Kim HJ, Dominici L et al. [34]2022Ann SurgSurgery-Breast
He XM, Zou DH [35]2017Sci RepSurgery-Breast
Chien JC, Liu WS et al. [36]2022BreastSurgery-Breast
Vila J, Gandini S et al. [37]2015BreastSurgery-Breast
Cronin PA, Olcese C et al. [38]2015Ann Surg Oncol Surgery-Breast
Bao S, He G [39]2022Breast JSurgery-Breast
Cao JQ, Truong PT et al. [40]2014Int J Radiat OncolSurgery-Breast
Chen LJ, Chang YJ et al. [41]2021BJS OpenSurgery-Breast
Frandsen J, Ly D et al. [42]2015Int J Radiat Oncol Biol PhysSurgery-Breast
Jeon YW, Choi JE et al. [43]2013Breast Cancer Res TreatSurgery-Breast
Maishman T, Cutress RI et al. [44]2017Ann SurgSurgery-Breast
Quan ML, Paszat LF et al. [45]2017J Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Sinnaduri S, Kwong A, et al. [46]2019BJS OpenSurgery-Breast
Wang L, He Y et al. [47]2020Breast Cancer Res TreatSurgery-Breast
Li P, Li L et al. [48]2022Front OncolSurgery-Breast
Xie Z, Wang X et al. [49]2014Ann Surg OncolSurgery-Breast
Bouchard-Fortier A, Baxter NN et al. [50]2018Curr OncolContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Dettwyler SA, Thull DL et al. [51]2022Breast Cancer Res TreatContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Donovan CA, Bao J et al. [52]2017Ann Surg OncolContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Pesce CE, Liederbach E et al. [53]2014Ann Surg OncolContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Rosenberg SM, Sepucha K et al. [54]2015Ann Surg OncolContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Terkelsen T, Ronning H, et al. [55]2020Acta OncolContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Zeichner SB, Ruiz AL et al. [56]2014Asian Pac J Cancer PrevContralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy
Tadros AB, Moo TA et al. [57]2020Breast Cancer Res TreatSurgery-Axilla
Guay E, Cordeiro E et al. [58]2022Ann Surg OncolSurgical Timing
Berhili S, Ouabdelmoumen A et al. [59]2019Clin Breast CancerPsychological
Olasehinde O, Arije O et al. [60]2019J Glob OncolPsychological
Rosenberg SM, Dominici LS et al. [61]2020JAMA SurgPsychological
Rosenberg SM, Greaney ML et al. [62]2019J Adolesc Young Adult OncolPsychological
Rosenberg SM, Greaney ML et al. [63]2018PsychooncologyPsychological
Fanakidou, I, Zyga S, et al. [64]2018Qual Life ResPsychological
Nozawa K, Ichimura M et al. [65]2015Int J Clin OncolPsychological
Bantema-Joppe EJ, de Bock GH et al. [66]2015Br J CancerPsychological
Recio-Saucedo A, Gerty S et al. [67]2016BreastPsychological
Seror V, Cortaredona S, et al. [68]2013PsychooncologyPsychological
Patel A, Wang WJ et al. [69]2019Breast JDisparity
Politi MC, Yen RW et al. [70]2021Oncologist Disparity
Zhang J, Yang C et al. [71]2021Front OncolDisparity
Park AR, Chae EY et al. [72]2021RadiologyMRI Evaluation on Breast Surgery
Grimmer L, Liederbach E et al. [73]2015J Am Coll SurgMultiple-Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Disparity
Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS et al. [74]2013Ann Intern MedMultiple-Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Psychological
Smith EC, Ziogas A et al. [75]2013JAMA SurgMultiple-Surgical Timing and Disparity
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Murphy, B.L.; Pereslucha, A.; Boughey, J.C. Current Considerations in Surgical Treatment for Adolescents and Young Women with Breast Cancer. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122542

AMA Style

Murphy BL, Pereslucha A, Boughey JC. Current Considerations in Surgical Treatment for Adolescents and Young Women with Breast Cancer. Healthcare. 2022; 10(12):2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122542

Chicago/Turabian Style

Murphy, Brittany L., Alicia Pereslucha, and Judy C. Boughey. 2022. "Current Considerations in Surgical Treatment for Adolescents and Young Women with Breast Cancer" Healthcare 10, no. 12: 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122542

APA Style

Murphy, B. L., Pereslucha, A., & Boughey, J. C. (2022). Current Considerations in Surgical Treatment for Adolescents and Young Women with Breast Cancer. Healthcare, 10(12), 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122542

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop