Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing numbers of women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing CPM, quantitative evidence of all stakeholder preferences regarding CPM is lacking, particularly for healthy volunteers. Conjoint analysis, a marketing tool, can be used to quantify tradeoffs surrounding CPM. STUDY DESIGN: The objective of this study was to quantify preferences for aspects of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) decision-making process among key stakeholders. Healthy volunteers, women with cancer (WwCa), surgical oncologists, and plastic surgeons were surveyed with the same conjoint simulation exercise. Respondents chose between either single (SM) or double (DM) mastectomy under varying recurrence and complication rates, surveillance, and symmetry conditions. Hierarchical Bayesian models calculated partworth utilities and importance scores. RESULTS: Overall, 1,244 respondents participated. The top 3 important factors for all stakeholders were surgical complication rates after DM, type of surgery (SM vs DM) independent of other variables, and 10-year future contralateral cancer risk after SM. HV and surgeons placed greatest importance on high rates of surgical complications after DM. WwCa preferred DM, regardless of complication risk or low rates of a 10-year future cancer episode after SM. Surgical oncologists strongly preferred SM and were more accepting of future cancer risk of 3% or 10% than other stakeholders. Symmetry and need for surveillance were least important factors for all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The threshold of acceptability for future cancer episodes and risk tolerance for complications varies by stakeholder, with a profound influence upon WwCA. Current findings suggest room for improved provider and patient alignment through behavioral techniques, such as framing, meanwhile highlighting changes in risk perception after a breast cancer diagnosis.