Choosing Mastectomy: A Qualitative Exploration of the Increasing Mastectomy Rates in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Rates of Unilateral (UM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) have been increasing. Numerous factors for this rise have been suggested including the surgeon's preference, the patient's choice and the external environment.\nObjectives: A grounded theory study explored women's decision-making processes in their treatment for ESBC, and elucidated the role of the surgeon and the practice environment in the increasing rates. The Health-Belief Model was applied, discerning those factors influential in surgical decision-making shaping women's choice for UM+/-CPM.\nDesign: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients to understand their experiences and decision-making which resulted in undergoing UM+/-CPM. Similarly, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general surgeons exploring their treatment approaches to ESBC. Theoretical sampling identified suitable candidates. Data were collected until saturation was reached. Constant comparative analysis identified key concepts. \nResults: 29 patients and 45 surgeons completed interviews. The `overwhelming threat' of breast cancer `was the dominant theme. Despite surgeons describing the high survivability of ESBC, patients misperceived the threat of death from their cancer, and strived to eliminate this threat by choosing UM+/-CPM. Surgeons described breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and UM as equivalent treatment options for ESBC, and frequently recommended BCT. Despite this, women requested UM+/-CPM. CPM was discouraged, as surgeons described no survival advantage and increased operative risks. \nExperiential knowledge was the most influential factor in patients' decision-making. Previous negative experiences of family and friends with breast cancer, translated into an overestimated risk of recurrence, contralateral cancer, metastasis and subsequent death. Patients' perceived the risks and severity of ESBC to be great, and believed that by choosing UM+/-CPM they would eliminate the threat of breast cancer. Most women did not perceive any risks of undergoing UM+/-CPM, yet many experienced concerns with disturbed skin sensation, cosmesis and body image.\nConclusion: Previous cancer experiences and experiential knowledge are extremely influential in women undergoing UM+/-CPM. Women overestimated their risk and misperceived the benefit of UM+/-CPM as they thought it would substantially improve their cancer outcomes. As undergoing UM+/-CPM is not without risks improved discussion of patient sources of information and fears around survival may benefit surgical consultations, facilitating informed decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".