Decisional Conflict About Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer with and Without Pathogenic Variants in BRCA Genes

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Decision making for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer involves complex risk-benefit trade-offs that may lead to decisional conflict. Understanding factors associated with decisional conflict, particularly for patients with pathogenic variants in <i>BRCA</i> genes, is critical for developing tailored decisional support. This study examined decisional conflict, shared decision making, and decisional role preferences in Korean patients with breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, focusing on factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and differences by <i>BRCA</i> status. <b>Methods</b>: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey was conducted between August and October 2024. Independent <i>t</i>-tests, univariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict. <b>Results</b>: The sample included 167 Korean patients with breast cancer (90 <i>BRCA</i> carriers and 77 non-carriers). Most patients (76%) experienced clinically significant decisional conflict. Non-carriers reported higher decisional conflict (44.2 vs. 29.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and lower shared decision making than <i>BRCA</i> carriers (44.6 vs. 61.9, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Role preferences were similarly distributed across groups (50.3% active, 24.0% collaborative, 25.7% passive). In multivariable analysis, clinically significant decisional conflict in the total sample was associated with non-carrier status (OR = 2.98) and lower shared decision-making scores (OR = 0.94) (<i>p</i> < 0.05), explaining 28% of the variance. Among <i>BRCA</i> carriers, clinically significant decisional conflict was associated with lower shared decision-making scores (OR = 0.92) and passive role preferences (vs. active) (OR = 4.88). No variables were significantly associated with decisional conflict among non-carriers. <b>Conclusions</b>: Findings suggest that decisional conflict is influenced by genetic risk and the quality of the decision-making process. Improving patient engagement by identifying preferred decisional roles, understanding the reasons behind these preferences, and encouraging shared decision making may help reduce decisional conflict, particularly among <i>BRCA</i> carriers. Further research is needed to better understand factors associated with decisional conflict among non-carriers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-03-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18061040
Primary Topic
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decisional Conflict About Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer with and Without Pathogenic Variants in BRCA Genes

Maria C. Katapodi, Ji Hyun Sung, Sun-Young Park
Cancers
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
article

Decisional Conflict About Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Patients with Breast Cancer with and Without Pathogenic Variants in BRCA Genes

Maria C. Katapodi, Ji Hyun Sung, Sun-Young Park
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Decision making for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer involves complex risk-benefit trade-offs that may lead to decisional conflict. Understanding factors associated with decisional conflict, particularly for patients with pathogenic variants in <i>BRCA</i> genes, is critical for developing tailored decisional support. This study examined decisional conflict, shared decision making, and decisional role preferences in Korean patients with breast cancer considering contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, focusing on factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and differences by <i>BRCA</i> status. <b>Methods</b>: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey was conducted between August and October 2024. Independent <i>t</i>-tests, univariate, and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict. <b>Results</b>: The sample included 167 Korean patients with breast cancer (90 <i>BRCA</i> carriers and 77 non-carriers). Most patients (76%) experienced clinically significant decisional conflict. Non-carriers reported higher decisional conflict (44.2 vs. 29.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and lower shared decision making than <i>BRCA</i> carriers (44.6 vs. 61.9, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Role preferences were similarly distributed across groups (50.3% active, 24.0% collaborative, 25.7% passive). In multivariable analysis, clinically significant decisional conflict in the total sample was associated with non-carrier status (OR = 2.98) and lower shared decision-making scores (OR = 0.94) (<i>p</i> < 0.05), explaining 28% of the variance. Among <i>BRCA</i> carriers, clinically significant decisional conflict was associated with lower shared decision-making scores (OR = 0.92) and passive role preferences (vs. active) (OR = 4.88). No variables were significantly associated with decisional conflict among non-carriers. <b>Conclusions</b>: Findings suggest that decisional conflict is influenced by genetic risk and the quality of the decision-making process. Improving patient engagement by identifying preferred decisional roles, understanding the reasons behind these preferences, and encouraging shared decision making may help reduce decisional conflict, particularly among <i>BRCA</i> carriers. Further research is needed to better understand factors associated with decisional conflict among non-carriers.

CancersVol. 18(6)
University of Basel (CH), Kyungpook National University (KR), Keimyung University (KR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.