IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1995856801-805_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The practice of prophylactic mastectomy: A survey of Maryland surgeons

Author

Listed:
  • Houn, F.
  • Helzlsouer, K.J.
  • Friedman, N.B.
  • Stefanek, M.E.

Abstract

Objectives. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is a drastic breast cancer preventive option for which indications are not standardized and efficacy has not been proven. To estimate the magnitude of this controversial practice, surgeons were surveyed on their recommendations about and performance of prophylactic mastectomy. Methods. A cross-sectional survey was sent to general surgeons (n = 522), plastic surgeons (n = 80), and gynecologists (n = 801) licensed to practice in Maryland in 1992. Proportions responding were 41.9%, 66.3%, and 54.9%, respectively. In addition, there were 30 respondents who identified 'other' as their specialty. The respondents were asked about the role of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and the number of times they had recommended performed it in a year. Results. Seven hundred forty-two surgeons responded (51.8%). More plastic surgeons (84.6%) than general surgeons (47.0%) and gynecologists (38.3%) agreed that bilateral prophylactic mastectomy has a role in the care of high-risk women. Eighty-one percent of plastic surgeons had recommended the procedure, compared with 38.8% of general surgeons and 17.7% of gynecologists. Conclusions. Indications and practice patterns reveal heterogeneity of medical opinion and practice of prophylactic mastectomy. This study raises the need for better evaluation of the efficacy and appropriateness of prophylactic mastectomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Houn, F. & Helzlsouer, K.J. & Friedman, N.B. & Stefanek, M.E., 1995. "The practice of prophylactic mastectomy: A survey of Maryland surgeons," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(6), pages 801-805.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:6:801-805_0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1995:85:6:801-805_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.