4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Factors influencing a woman's choice to undergo breast conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 180, 期 6, 页码 413-418

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00501-8

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The use of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rather than modified radical mastectomy (MRM) for the treatment of breast carcinoma is an option for the majority of women (75%) with early stage breast cancer, but only 20% to 50% choose to undergo this procedure nationwide. The objective of this study was to identify factors influencing a woman's choice between BCS and MRM, and specifically, the surgeon's influence on this choice. METHODS: A total of 134 women eligible for BCS were sent a survey. Data obtained included demographics, influential factors in treatment choice, and satisfaction with preoperative discussion and postoperative results. RESULTS: Ninety-six women completed the questionnaire. Mean patient age was 62 years. Most women surveyed felt their treatment options were satisfactorily explained to them. BCS, MRM with reconstruction (MRM-R), and MRM without reconstruction (MRM-NR) were performed in 45%, 15%, and 40% of patients, respectively, Overall, the most influential factor was the fear of cancer. Women choosing BCS indicated that the surgeon, cosmetic result, and psychological aspects were more influential in their decision than in women undergoing MRM-NR (P < 0.02). Fear of cancer was the most important factor affecting the choice to undergo MRM-NR. In comparing MRM-R with MRM-NR, there was a similar fear of cancer; however, MRM-R had much greater concern with cosmesis (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon's input is important in a woman's choice to undergo BCS or MRM-R. However, it appears that if a woman wants to have MRM-NR, even when she is a candidate for BCS, the surgeon's input is overshadowed by the patient's fear of cancer. (C) 2001 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据