Show simple item record

Surgeon perspectives about local therapy for breast carcinoma

dc.contributor.authorKatz, Steven J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLantz, Paula M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJanz, Nancy K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFagerlin, Angelaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchwartz, Kendra L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Lihuaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeapen, Dennisen_US
dc.contributor.authorSalem, Barbaraen_US
dc.contributor.authorLakhani, Induen_US
dc.contributor.authorMorrow, Monicaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-12-07T16:51:38Z
dc.date.available2006-12-07T16:51:38Z
dc.date.issued2005-11-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationKatz, Steven J.; Lantz, Paula M.; Janz, Nancy K.; Fagerlin, Angela; Schwartz, Kendra; Liu, Lihua; Deapen, Dennis; Salem, Barbara; Lakhani, Indu; Morrow, Monica (2005)."Surgeon perspectives about local therapy for breast carcinoma The collection of cancer incidence data used in the current study was supported by the California Department of Health Services as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and no endorsement by the State of California, Department of Health Services, is intended or should be inferred. ." Cancer 104(9): 1854-1861. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/48757>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/48757
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16161056&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND Geographic variations in the use of mastectomy and the use of radiation therapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have motivated concerns that surgeons are not uniformly adhering to treatment standards. METHODS The authors surveyed attending surgeons of a population-based sample of patients with breast carcinoma diagnosed in Detroit and Los Angeles from December 2001 to January 2003 ( n = 365; response rate, 80.0%). Clinical scenarios were used to evaluate opinions about local therapy. RESULTS On average, surgeons reported that they devoted 31.3% of their total practice to breast carcinoma. Approximately one-half of surgeons practiced in a community hospital setting, whereas 18.8% practiced in a cancer center. Compared to low volume surgeons, high volume surgeons were more likely to favor BCS with RT for invasive breast carcinoma (60.8%, 74.0%, and 87.2% for low, moderate, and high volume surgeons, respectively, P < 0.001). Surgeons who favored BCS were more likely to perceive greater quality of life (QOL) benefits for BCS than mastectomy (85.9%) compared with surgeons who favored mastectomy (28.6%) and those who did not favor 1 procedure over the other (60.0%, P < 0.001). In a ductal carcinoma in situ scenario, 35.0% of surgeons favored BCS without RT and 61.0% favored BCS with RT. Opinions regarding the role of RT after BCS varied by geographic site, surgeon volume, and patient age. CONCLUSIONS Variation in surgeon opinion concerning local therapy reflected clinical uncertainty about the benefits of alternative treatments. High volume surgeons more frequently endorsed current clinical guidelines that favor BCS compared with mastectomy. This may partly be explained by the greater belief that BCS confers a better patient QOL than mastectomy. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.en_US
dc.format.extent148160 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherLife and Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.otherCancer Research, Oncology and Pathologyen_US
dc.titleSurgeon perspectives about local therapy for breast carcinomaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Fax: (734) 936-8944 ; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, 300 N. Ingalls, Suite 7E12, P. O. Box 0429, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0429en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Family Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan ; Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Californiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniaen_US
dc.identifier.pmid16161056en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48757/1/21396_ftp.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21396en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.