This article reports findings from a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that demonstrate a rise in double mastectomies among women diagnosed with cancer in one breast. This may be overtreatment for many women. The story may have been more balanced by interviewing a patient who chose less treatment and her rationale for this choice.
The story cites breast cancer experts who note that there is little difference between the surgical treatments in terms of dying from breast cancer. Importantly, the story notes that having a mastectomy does not reduce a recurrence risk to zero, as some cancer cells may remain. The story notes that physicians should provide women with as much information about the survival benefit of all treatments, including less invasive options for reducing the risk of a recurrence. The story lists other non-surgical options for prevention and active surveillance for women at high risk of or having a recurrence, or developing a primary breast cancer.
An important oversight of the story is the lack of discussion of radiation, which is often given with lumpectomy. Lumpectomy alone is not comparable to mastectomy without radiation. The story might have benefited from listing data comparing lumpectomy and radiation with mastectomy. On this point, foregoing radiation due to another health condition and/or preferences to avoid side effects may play into a woman’s decision to undergo a mastectomy or bilateral mastectomy. The story also didn’t mentioned that some reconstruction procedures (e.g. tram flaps) can only be done once, so women considering those may have double and do both at once.
The story does not list the additional cost of surgical treatment and reconstruction for the prophylactic mastectomy. While the focus of the story was to report the increase in these procedures, the story could list the average cost and the time spent recovering from bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction.
The focus of the story was the increase in bilateral mastectomies in women diagnosed with breast cancer in one breast. The story notes that the survival difference between lumpectomy and mastectomy is about the same; however, the story does not mention that radiation is given with lumpectomy in order to reduce the risk of recurrence. Lumpectomy is not comparable to mastectomy without radiation. The story might have benefited from listing these data comparing lumpectomy and radiation with mastectomy. The story appropriately notes that having a mastectomy does not reduce a recurrence risk to zero as some cancer cells may remain.
The focus of the story discusses the recent increase in bilateral mastectomy after the diagnosis of cancer in one breast. This may be overtreatment for some women. The story notes that physicians should provide women with accurate information about the survival benefit of all treatments, including less invasive options for reducing the risk of a recurrence.
The story discusses recent data showing an increase in preference for bilateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with early breast cancer in one breast. These are women who would likely be candidates for either lumpectomy, lumpectomy and radiation or mastectomy. The story appropriately notes that having a mastectomy does not reduce a recurrence risk to zero as some cancer cells may remain.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story reports SEER data on the increase in bilateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with breast cancer in one breast.
The story cites Dr. Tuttle, the lead author of the study; a woman who decided to undergo a bilateral mastectomy, though she only had cancer in one breast; and Dr. Gralow, who questions the trend of prophylactic mastectomies in women who have the option to undergo lumpectomy and radiation, or lumpectomy alone (for DCIS). The story may have been more balanced by interviewing a patient who chose less treatment, along with her rationale.
The story notes surgical treatment options for women with early stage breast cancer. However, the story does not mention radiation with lumpectomy. Forgoing radiation due to preferences to avoid side effects may play into a woman’s decision to undergo a mastectomy or bilateral mastectomy. The story cites breast cancer experts who note that there is little difference between these surgical treatments in terms of dying from breast cancer. The story lists other non-surgical options for prevention for women at high risk of developing breast cancer, or having a recurrence. The story also didn’t mention that some reconstruction procedures (e.g. tram flaps) can only be done once, so women considering those may have double and do both at once.
The story notes surgical treatments available for women who are diagnosed with breast cancer. The story also notes via Dr. Gralow’s comments that women should be appropriatley informed about the absolute survival benefits of their treatment choices.
The increase in double mastectomy as prophylaxis after a cancer diagnosis is a new finding. The focus of the story discusses this data and attempts to explain this trend.
The story does not appear to rely on a press release and there are additional sources cited who are not affiliated with the study.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like claiming that the coronavirus vaccines could leave people “magnetized” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/06/some-doctors-spreading-coronavirus-misinformation-are-being-punished/
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like