ArticleOncology letters2016
Considerations arising from requests from patients for a bilateral mastectomy who are eligible for breast-conserving surgery: Factors weighing for and against performing the operation.
Article in Oncology letters, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Clinicopathologic Features and Surgical Treatment of Premenopausal Breast Cancer across Italy and China: Report from a Medical Exchange Program.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- The need to diminish mastectomy rates in patients with breast cancer eligible for breast conservation.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Basic Findings Regarding Breast Cancer in Korea in 2015: Data from a Breast Cancer Registry.Journal of breast cancer · 2018Review
- Trends in breast reconstruction practices in a specialized breast tertiary referral centre.BJS open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rates of mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing in patients with unilateral breast cancer who would be candidates for receiving breast-conserving surgery, according to recent studies. One reason for this finding is the entitlement of patients to choose to undergo a bilateral mastectomy as a surgery option. The present case report details the case of a 52-year-old woman, eligible for breast conservation, who had no high risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer, but who asked for a bilateral mastectomy and immediate reconstruction instead of breast-conserving surgery. The request for a bilateral mastectomy was declined on the basis that it would be unnecessary for the patient, and an excessive intervention; the patient subsequently obtained an independent second opinion, and she underwent a bilateral mastectomy with implant reconstruction prior to receiving wound care and follow-up at our institution. At follow-up 1 year later, the patient complained of sensations of general discomfort, sexual difficulties and a loss of sensation in the nipples. On the basis of the clinical outcomes of the bilateral mastectomy and the patient's experience of the operation, the present case study highlights a need for surgeons to clearly inform patients presenting with unilateral breast cancer about the attendant risks and real benefits of bilateral mastectomy, in order to reach a mutual decision in terms of health care that is not fuelled by anxiety or an overestimation of the risk of developing secondary cancer. Bilateral mastectomy should be attentively evaluated as an option only in patients with a higher-than-average risk of developing contralateral breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.