Does a brief surgeon training in negotiation theory principles decrease rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy?

• Published in: Breast cancer research and treatment 2023-05, Vol.199 (1), p.119-126
• Main Authors: Mamtani, Anita, Sjoberg, Daniel D., Vincent, Alain, Ehdaie, Behfar, Malhotra, Deepak, Vickers, Andrew, Morrow, Monica
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control; Breast Neoplasms - surgery; Cancer research; Epidemiology; Estrogen receptors; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Negotiating; Oncology; Patients; Prophylactic Mastectomy; Self-assessment; Surgeons; Training; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms - surgery
• ISSN: 0167-6806; 1573-7217; 1573-7217
• DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-06891-6

Purpose Despite the lack of any oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) use among women with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. This patient-driven trend is influenced by fear of recurrence and desire for peace of mind. Traditional educational strategies have been ineffective in reducing CPM rates. Here we employ training in negotiation theory strategies for counseling and determine the effect on CPM rates. Methods In consecutive patients with unilateral breast cancer treated with mastectomy from 05/2017 to 12/2019, we examined CPM rates before and after a brief surgeon training in negotiation skills. This comprised a systematic framework for patient counseling utilizing early setting of the default option, leveraging social proof, and framing. Results Among 2144 patients, 925 (43%) were treated pre-training and 744 (35%) post-training. Those treated in the 6-month transition period were excluded ( n  = 475, 22%). Median patient age was 50 years; most patients had T1–T2 (72%), N0 (73%), and estrogen receptor-positive (80%) tumors of ductal histology (72%). The CPM rate was 47% pre-training versus 48% post-training, with an adjusted difference of −3.7% (95% CI −9.4 to 2.1, p  = 0.2). In a standardized self-assessment survey, all 15 surgeons reported a high baseline use of negotiation skills and no significant change in conversational difficulty with the structured approach. Conclusion Brief surgeon training did not affect self-reported use of negotiation skills or reduce CPM rates. The choice of CPM is a highly individual decision influenced by patient values and decision styles. Further research to identify effective strategies to minimize surgical overtreatment with CPM is needed.