Breast Cancer

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.

Key clinical point: Women with early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC) who underwent breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS) had better overall survival (OS) than those who underwent mastectomy.

Major finding: Compared with mastectomy, BCS was associated with improved OS in the overall population of patients with early-stage invasive BC (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% CI 0.55-0.74), with stronger effects observed in women followed-up for <10 years (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.46-0.64).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 30 studies including 1,802,128 women with early-stage invasive BC, of which 1,075,563 and 744,565 patients underwent BCS and mastectomy, respectively, and were followed-up for 4-20 years.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. Dr. Chatterjee declared serving as a consultant for 3M and Royal.

Source: De la Cruz Ku G et al. Does breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy have a better survival than mastectomy? A meta-analysis of more than 1,500,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8

Key clinical point: Women with early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC) who underwent breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS) had better overall survival (OS) than those who underwent mastectomy.

Major finding: Compared with mastectomy, BCS was associated with improved OS in the overall population of patients with early-stage invasive BC (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% CI 0.55-0.74), with stronger effects observed in women followed-up for <10 years (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.46-0.64).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 30 studies including 1,802,128 women with early-stage invasive BC, of which 1,075,563 and 744,565 patients underwent BCS and mastectomy, respectively, and were followed-up for 4-20 years.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. Dr. Chatterjee declared serving as a consultant for 3M and Royal.

Source: De la Cruz Ku G et al. Does breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy have a better survival than mastectomy? A meta-analysis of more than 1,500,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8

Key clinical point: Women with early-stage invasive breast cancer (BC) who underwent breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS) had better overall survival (OS) than those who underwent mastectomy.

Major finding: Compared with mastectomy, BCS was associated with improved OS in the overall population of patients with early-stage invasive BC (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% CI 0.55-0.74), with stronger effects observed in women followed-up for <10 years (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.46-0.64).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 30 studies including 1,802,128 women with early-stage invasive BC, of which 1,075,563 and 744,565 patients underwent BCS and mastectomy, respectively, and were followed-up for 4-20 years.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. Dr. Chatterjee declared serving as a consultant for 3M and Royal.

Source: De la Cruz Ku G et al. Does breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy have a better survival than mastectomy? A meta-analysis of more than 1,500,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-12133-8

Key clinical point: A live birth (LB) after the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) does not have a negative impact on a woman’s overall survival.

Major finding: Compared with women with no subsequent LB after BC diagnosis, the overall cohort of women with subsequent LB (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; P  =  .002), women with only 1 subsequent LB (HR 0.73; P  =  .033), women with subsequent LB and no prior history of pregnancy (HR 0.56; P  =  .003), and women with LB within 5 years of BC diagnosis (HR 0.66; P  =  .006) had improved survival.

Study details: Findings are from a survival analysis in a national cohort of 5181 women diagnosed with BC at the age of 20-39 years, of which 290 had ≥1 LB and 1682 had no LB after BC diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, UK. Two authors declared serving as consultants or receiving speaker honoraria from several sources.

Source: Anderson RA et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-122 (Jul 19). Doi:  10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.048

Key clinical point: A live birth (LB) after the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) does not have a negative impact on a woman’s overall survival.

Major finding: Compared with women with no subsequent LB after BC diagnosis, the overall cohort of women with subsequent LB (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; P  =  .002), women with only 1 subsequent LB (HR 0.73; P  =  .033), women with subsequent LB and no prior history of pregnancy (HR 0.56; P  =  .003), and women with LB within 5 years of BC diagnosis (HR 0.66; P  =  .006) had improved survival.

Study details: Findings are from a survival analysis in a national cohort of 5181 women diagnosed with BC at the age of 20-39 years, of which 290 had ≥1 LB and 1682 had no LB after BC diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, UK. Two authors declared serving as consultants or receiving speaker honoraria from several sources.

Source: Anderson RA et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-122 (Jul 19). Doi:  10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.048

Key clinical point: A live birth (LB) after the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) does not have a negative impact on a woman’s overall survival.

Major finding: Compared with women with no subsequent LB after BC diagnosis, the overall cohort of women with subsequent LB (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; P  =  .002), women with only 1 subsequent LB (HR 0.73; P  =  .033), women with subsequent LB and no prior history of pregnancy (HR 0.56; P  =  .003), and women with LB within 5 years of BC diagnosis (HR 0.66; P  =  .006) had improved survival.

Study details: Findings are from a survival analysis in a national cohort of 5181 women diagnosed with BC at the age of 20-39 years, of which 290 had ≥1 LB and 1682 had no LB after BC diagnosis.

Disclosures: This study was partly supported by the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, UK. Two authors declared serving as consultants or receiving speaker honoraria from several sources.

Source: Anderson RA et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-122 (Jul 19). Doi:  10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.048

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for 2 years showed a long-term (20 years) advantage in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC), with differential treatment benefit observed in genomic high-risk vs low-risk tumors.

Major finding: Goserelin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% CI 0.32-0.75), tamoxifen (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), and combined goserelin-tamoxifen (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.94) vs no adjuvant ET improved long-term distant recurrence-free interval in the overall cohort of patients, with tamoxifen and goserelin benefitting genomic low-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.60) and high-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.54) patients, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the secondary analysis of the Stockholm trial including 584 premenopausal patients with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive goserelin, tamoxifen, combined goserelin-tamoxifen, or no adjuvant ET for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or leaders for, being employees or stockowners of, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel, or accommodation expense from several sources.

Source: Johansson A et al. Twenty-year benefit from adjuvant goserelin and tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with breast cancer in a controlled randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02844

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for 2 years showed a long-term (20 years) advantage in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC), with differential treatment benefit observed in genomic high-risk vs low-risk tumors.

Major finding: Goserelin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% CI 0.32-0.75), tamoxifen (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), and combined goserelin-tamoxifen (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.94) vs no adjuvant ET improved long-term distant recurrence-free interval in the overall cohort of patients, with tamoxifen and goserelin benefitting genomic low-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.60) and high-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.54) patients, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the secondary analysis of the Stockholm trial including 584 premenopausal patients with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive goserelin, tamoxifen, combined goserelin-tamoxifen, or no adjuvant ET for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or leaders for, being employees or stockowners of, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel, or accommodation expense from several sources.

Source: Johansson A et al. Twenty-year benefit from adjuvant goserelin and tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with breast cancer in a controlled randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02844

Key clinical point: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for 2 years showed a long-term (20 years) advantage in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC), with differential treatment benefit observed in genomic high-risk vs low-risk tumors.

Major finding: Goserelin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% CI 0.32-0.75), tamoxifen (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38-0.87), and combined goserelin-tamoxifen (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.94) vs no adjuvant ET improved long-term distant recurrence-free interval in the overall cohort of patients, with tamoxifen and goserelin benefitting genomic low-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.60) and high-risk (HR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10-0.54) patients, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from the secondary analysis of the Stockholm trial including 584 premenopausal patients with ER+ BC who were randomly assigned to receive goserelin, tamoxifen, combined goserelin-tamoxifen, or no adjuvant ET for 2 years.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and other sources. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors or leaders for, being employees or stockowners of, or receiving research funding, honoraria, travel, or accommodation expense from several sources.

Source: Johansson A et al. Twenty-year benefit from adjuvant goserelin and tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with breast cancer in a controlled randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02844

Key clinical point: Vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) or menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) did not increase the risk for recurrence/mortality in postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC; however, the recurrence risk was higher in patients receiving aromatase inhibitors (AI)+VET.

Major finding: The recurrence risk among women receiving VET (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.89-1.32) or MHT (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.62-1.78) was similar to that among never-users of hormone therapy; however, the risk was elevated in patients receiving VET+AI (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04-1.85). Neither VET (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.87) nor MHT (aHR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70-1.26) was associated with increased overall mortality, irrespective of the receipt of AI.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 8461 postmenopausal women with early-stage, invasive, nonmetastatic, ER+ BC who received no endocrine treatment or 5-year adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors declared receiving support, honoraria, or institutional grants from several sources.

Source: Cold S et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Key clinical point: Vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) or menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) did not increase the risk for recurrence/mortality in postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC; however, the recurrence risk was higher in patients receiving aromatase inhibitors (AI)+VET.

Major finding: The recurrence risk among women receiving VET (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.89-1.32) or MHT (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.62-1.78) was similar to that among never-users of hormone therapy; however, the risk was elevated in patients receiving VET+AI (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04-1.85). Neither VET (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.87) nor MHT (aHR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70-1.26) was associated with increased overall mortality, irrespective of the receipt of AI.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 8461 postmenopausal women with early-stage, invasive, nonmetastatic, ER+ BC who received no endocrine treatment or 5-year adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors declared receiving support, honoraria, or institutional grants from several sources.

Source: Cold S et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Key clinical point: Vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) or menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) did not increase the risk for recurrence/mortality in postmenopausal women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC; however, the recurrence risk was higher in patients receiving aromatase inhibitors (AI)+VET.

Major finding: The recurrence risk among women receiving VET (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.89-1.32) or MHT (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.62-1.78) was similar to that among never-users of hormone therapy; however, the risk was elevated in patients receiving VET+AI (aHR 1.39; 95% CI 1.04-1.85). Neither VET (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.87) nor MHT (aHR 0.94; 95% CI 0.70-1.26) was associated with increased overall mortality, irrespective of the receipt of AI.

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 8461 postmenopausal women with early-stage, invasive, nonmetastatic, ER+ BC who received no endocrine treatment or 5-year adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Some authors declared receiving support, honoraria, or institutional grants from several sources.

Source: Cold S et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) who achieve a preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) score of 0-1/pathological complete response (pCR) with only neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can be safely treated without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) improved significantly in patients who had PEPI 0-1/pCR without chemotherapy vs PEPI ≥2 (hazard ratio 0.18; P  =  .028). In patients who had PEPI ≥2, the 5-year RFS was similar regardless of the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (P  =  .432).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 352 postmenopausal women with early-stage, strongly ER+ and HER2− BC who received NET for 4 months before surgery; after surgery, patients with PEPI 0-1/pCR and PEPI ≥2 were recommended only adjuvant ET and adjuvant ET±chemotherapy, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for strongly hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer: results of a prospective multi-center study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Aug 2(. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06686-1

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) who achieve a preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) score of 0-1/pathological complete response (pCR) with only neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can be safely treated without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) improved significantly in patients who had PEPI 0-1/pCR without chemotherapy vs PEPI ≥2 (hazard ratio 0.18; P  =  .028). In patients who had PEPI ≥2, the 5-year RFS was similar regardless of the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (P  =  .432).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 352 postmenopausal women with early-stage, strongly ER+ and HER2− BC who received NET for 4 months before surgery; after surgery, patients with PEPI 0-1/pCR and PEPI ≥2 were recommended only adjuvant ET and adjuvant ET±chemotherapy, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for strongly hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer: results of a prospective multi-center study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Aug 2(. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06686-1

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer (BC) who achieve a preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) score of 0-1/pathological complete response (pCR) with only neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can be safely treated without adjuvant chemotherapy.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 60 months, the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) improved significantly in patients who had PEPI 0-1/pCR without chemotherapy vs PEPI ≥2 (hazard ratio 0.18; P  =  .028). In patients who had PEPI ≥2, the 5-year RFS was similar regardless of the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (P  =  .432).

Study details: Findings are from a phase 2 trial including 352 postmenopausal women with early-stage, strongly ER+ and HER2− BC who received NET for 4 months before surgery; after surgery, patients with PEPI 0-1/pCR and PEPI ≥2 were recommended only adjuvant ET and adjuvant ET±chemotherapy, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang X et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for strongly hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer: results of a prospective multi-center study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022 (Aug 2(. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06686-1

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received oral paclitaxel plus encequidar to facilitate the absorption of oral paclitaxel showed higher confirmed tumor response compared with 3 weekly intravenous (IV) paclitaxel doses.

Major finding: Confirmed tumor response rate improved significantly with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel (36% vs 23%; P  =  .011). The incidence of grade ≥2 neuropathy (31% vs 8%) and grade 2 alopecia (48% vs 29%) were higher with IV paclitaxel vs oral paclitaxel+encequidar; however, the incidence of grade ≥3 gastrointestinal disorders (11.7% vs 3.7%) was higher with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel.

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 study including 402 postmenopausal women with metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to receive oral paclitaxel+encequidar or IV paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Athenex, Inc. Four authors declared being employees and owning stocks in Athenex, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Athenex.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study comparing oral paclitaxel plus encequidar versus intravenous paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02953

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received oral paclitaxel plus encequidar to facilitate the absorption of oral paclitaxel showed higher confirmed tumor response compared with 3 weekly intravenous (IV) paclitaxel doses.

Major finding: Confirmed tumor response rate improved significantly with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel (36% vs 23%; P  =  .011). The incidence of grade ≥2 neuropathy (31% vs 8%) and grade 2 alopecia (48% vs 29%) were higher with IV paclitaxel vs oral paclitaxel+encequidar; however, the incidence of grade ≥3 gastrointestinal disorders (11.7% vs 3.7%) was higher with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel.

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 study including 402 postmenopausal women with metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to receive oral paclitaxel+encequidar or IV paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Athenex, Inc. Four authors declared being employees and owning stocks in Athenex, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Athenex.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study comparing oral paclitaxel plus encequidar versus intravenous paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02953

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) who received oral paclitaxel plus encequidar to facilitate the absorption of oral paclitaxel showed higher confirmed tumor response compared with 3 weekly intravenous (IV) paclitaxel doses.

Major finding: Confirmed tumor response rate improved significantly with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel (36% vs 23%; P  =  .011). The incidence of grade ≥2 neuropathy (31% vs 8%) and grade 2 alopecia (48% vs 29%) were higher with IV paclitaxel vs oral paclitaxel+encequidar; however, the incidence of grade ≥3 gastrointestinal disorders (11.7% vs 3.7%) was higher with oral paclitaxel+encequidar vs IV paclitaxel.

Study details: Findings are from the open-label, phase 3 study including 402 postmenopausal women with metastatic BC who were randomly assigned to receive oral paclitaxel+encequidar or IV paclitaxel.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Athenex, Inc. Four authors declared being employees and owning stocks in Athenex, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including Athenex.

Source: Rugo HS et al. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study comparing oral paclitaxel plus encequidar versus intravenous paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02953

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (PATH) demonstrated an acceptable pathological complete response (pCR) rate and a modest safety profile in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was 61% in the overall cohort and was higher in patients with hormone receptor-negative vs -positive subtype (77% vs 44%), stages IIA and IIB vs stage III BC (69% and 70% vs 39% respectively), and positive vs negative programmed cell death 1 expression (100% vs 53%). Few patients reported grade ≥3 neutropenia (12%) and febrile neutropenia (8%).

Study details: Findings are from a single-arm phase 2 trial including 67 patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III BC who initiated 6 cycles of PATH+atezolizumab every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea, and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards or receiving personal fees, grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Ahn HK et al. Response rate and safety of a neoadjuvant pertuzumab, atezolizumab, docetaxel, and trastuzumab regimen for patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III breast cancer: The neo-PATH phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2310

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (PATH) demonstrated an acceptable pathological complete response (pCR) rate and a modest safety profile in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was 61% in the overall cohort and was higher in patients with hormone receptor-negative vs -positive subtype (77% vs 44%), stages IIA and IIB vs stage III BC (69% and 70% vs 39% respectively), and positive vs negative programmed cell death 1 expression (100% vs 53%). Few patients reported grade ≥3 neutropenia (12%) and febrile neutropenia (8%).

Study details: Findings are from a single-arm phase 2 trial including 67 patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III BC who initiated 6 cycles of PATH+atezolizumab every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea, and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards or receiving personal fees, grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Ahn HK et al. Response rate and safety of a neoadjuvant pertuzumab, atezolizumab, docetaxel, and trastuzumab regimen for patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III breast cancer: The neo-PATH phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2310

Key clinical point: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus docetaxel, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (PATH) demonstrated an acceptable pathological complete response (pCR) rate and a modest safety profile in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-positive early breast cancer (BC).

Major finding: Rate of pCR was 61% in the overall cohort and was higher in patients with hormone receptor-negative vs -positive subtype (77% vs 44%), stages IIA and IIB vs stage III BC (69% and 70% vs 39% respectively), and positive vs negative programmed cell death 1 expression (100% vs 53%). Few patients reported grade ≥3 neutropenia (12%) and febrile neutropenia (8%).

Study details: Findings are from a single-arm phase 2 trial including 67 patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III BC who initiated 6 cycles of PATH+atezolizumab every 3 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea, and other sources. The authors declared serving on advisory boards or receiving personal fees, grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or nonfinancial support from several sources.

Source: Ahn HK et al. Response rate and safety of a neoadjuvant pertuzumab, atezolizumab, docetaxel, and trastuzumab regimen for patients with ERBB2-positive stage II/III breast cancer: The neo-PATH phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Jul 7). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2310

Key clinical point: In patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), first-line treatment with nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel+cisplatin significantly reduced the risk for disease progression/death compared with gemcitabine+cisplatin, with both the combinations showing a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Progression-free survival (stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P  =  .004) and objective response rate (81.1% vs 56.3%; P < .001) improved significantly in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin. Grade ≥3 only neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) were higher in the nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin arm, whereas grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (29.4% vs 3.9%) was more common in the gemcitabine+cisplatin vs nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin arm.

Study details: Findings are from an open-label phase 3 study including 254 patients with untreated metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin or gemcitabine+cisplatin.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang B et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4025 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31704-7

Key clinical point: In patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), first-line treatment with nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel+cisplatin significantly reduced the risk for disease progression/death compared with gemcitabine+cisplatin, with both the combinations showing a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Progression-free survival (stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P  =  .004) and objective response rate (81.1% vs 56.3%; P < .001) improved significantly in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin. Grade ≥3 only neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) were higher in the nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin arm, whereas grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (29.4% vs 3.9%) was more common in the gemcitabine+cisplatin vs nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin arm.

Study details: Findings are from an open-label phase 3 study including 254 patients with untreated metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin or gemcitabine+cisplatin.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang B et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4025 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31704-7

Key clinical point: In patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), first-line treatment with nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel+cisplatin significantly reduced the risk for disease progression/death compared with gemcitabine+cisplatin, with both the combinations showing a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Progression-free survival (stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P  =  .004) and objective response rate (81.1% vs 56.3%; P < .001) improved significantly in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin. Grade ≥3 only neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) were higher in the nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin vs gemcitabine+cisplatin arm, whereas grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (29.4% vs 3.9%) was more common in the gemcitabine+cisplatin vs nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin arm.

Study details: Findings are from an open-label phase 3 study including 254 patients with untreated metastatic TNBC who were randomly assigned to receive nab-paclitaxel+cisplatin or gemcitabine+cisplatin.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang B et al. A randomized phase 3 trial of gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel combined with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4025 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31704-7