Mastectomy Versus Breast-Conservation Therapy: An Examination of How Individual, Clinicopathologic, and Physician Factors Influence Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The choice of mastectomy compared with breast-conservation therapy (bct) in early-stage breast cancer (esbca) is a complicated decision-making process. Interprovincially, Canada's mastectomy rates vary from 25% to 68%, with Saskatchewan reporting the nation's second-highest mastectomy rate at 63%. The aim of our research was to better understand why women with esbca choose mastectomy rather than bct in Saskatchewan. Methods: We created a survey based on a previously developed framework that organizes influencing factors into 3 constructs: clinicopathologic, physician, and individual belief factors. Results: Treatment choice was found to be influenced by disease stage and multiple individual belief factors. Compared with their counterparts having stage i disease, women with stage ii disease were significantly more likely to undergo mastectomy [odds ratio (or): 7.48]. Patients rating "worry about cancer recurrence" and "total treatment time" as more influential in their choice were also more likely to undergo mastectomy (or: 3.4 and 1.8 respectively). Conversely, women rating "wanting to keep own breast tissue," "tumour size," and "surgeon's opinion" as influential in their choice were more likely to undergo bct (or: 0.17, 0.66, and 0.69 respectively). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that treatment choices for Saskatchewan women with esbca are influenced primarily by disease stage and individual belief factors. Those findings suggest that women are making their treatment choices predominantly based on individual values and preferences. The use of rates of mastectomy and bct as indicators of quality of care might be misleading. Instead, a shift in attention toward patient-centred care might be more appropriate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".