The effect of legislative requirements on the use of breast-conserving surgery

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 335, Issue 14, 1996, Pages 1035-1040

  Nattinger, Ann Butler ^a   Hoffmann, Raymond G ^a   Shapiro, Robyn ^a   Gottlieb, Mark S ^a   Goodwin, James S ^b  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^b University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ALTERNATIVES; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL APPROACH/SOURCE; CONNECTICUT; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; FEMALES; GEORGIA; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HAWAII; IOWA; LEGAL APPROACH; MICHIGAN; NEW MEXICO; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; SOCIAL IMPACT; UNITED STATES; UTAH; WASHINGTON;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; LOGISTIC MODELS; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MIDDLE AGED; SEER PROGRAM; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029819838     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199610033351407     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Greer AL. The two cultures of biomedicine: can there he consensus? JAMA 1987;258:2739-40.
2. Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM. Changing physicians' practices. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1271-3.
3. Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Rogers WH, McCloskey L, Winslow CM, Brook RH. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA 1987;258:2708-13.
4. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, Vayda E, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989;321: 1306-11.
5. Studnicki J, Schapira DV, Bradham DD, Clark RA, Jarrett A. Response to the National Cancer Institute alert: the effect of practice guidelines on two hospitals in the same medical community. Cancer 1993;72:2986-92.
6. Effectiveness: evidence and an application. In: Aday LA, Begley CE, Lairson DR, Slater CH. Evaluating the medical care system: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Health Administration Press, 1993:49-69.
7. Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med 1981;305:6-11.
8. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Rouesse J, et al. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in breast cancer tumors with macroscopic diameter of 20 millimeters or less: the experience of the Institut Gustave-Roussy. Cancer 1984; 53:1209-13.
9. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:665-73.
10. Harris JR, Hellman S, Kinne DW. Limited surgery and radiotherapy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1365-8.
11. Mann BA, Samet JM, Hunt WC, Key CR, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Changing treatment of breast cancer in New Mexico from 1969 through 1985. JAMA 1988;259:3413-7.
12. Lazovich DA, White E, Thomas DB, Moe RE. Underutilization of breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy among women with stage I or II breast cancer. JAMA 1991;266:3433-8.
13. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Hoffman RG, Walker AP, Goodwin JS. Minimal increase in use of breast-conserving surgery from 1986 to 1990. Med Care 1996;34:479-89.
14. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Veum J, Yahnke D, Goodwin JS. Geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1102-7.
15. Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM. Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1097-101.
16. Nayfield SG, Bongiovanni GC, Alciati MH, Fischer RA, Bergner L. Statutory requirements for disclosure of breast cancer treatment alternatives. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1202-8.
17. Surveillance Program, Cancer Statistics Branch. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program special public use tape (1973-90). Bethcsda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1993.
18. Michalski TA, Nattinger AB. Influence of socioeconomic status and black race on use of conservative surgery for breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:Suppl:124. abstract.
19. Bureau of Health Professions. The Area Resource File (ARF) system: information for health resources planning and research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992.
20. Jenkins GM. Practical experiences with modelling and forecasting time series. Jersey, Channel Islands, United Kingdom: Gwilyn Jenkins & Partners, 1979:104-9.
21. Landwehr JM, Pregibon D, Shoemaker AC. Graphical methods for assessing logistic regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 1984;79:61-71.
22. Dixon D, Devin G. Multiple comparisons for relative risk regression: extension of the k-ratio method. Stat Med 1987;6:591-7.
23. Ch. 333, M.C.L.A. §17013 (1992).
24. Hawaii Stat. Ann. §671-3 (1985).
25. Ga. Stat. §43-34-21 (1994).
26. N.M. H.J. Mem. 4, 36th leg. 2nd sess. (1984).
27. Ch. 333, M.C.L.A. §9501 (1992).
28. Mor V, Guadagnoli E, Silliman RA, et al. Influence of old age, performance status, medical, and psychosocial status on management of cancer patients. In: Yancik R, Yares JW, eds. Cancer in the elderly. New York: Springer, 1989:127-48.
29. Tarbox BB, Rockwood JK, Abernathy CM. Are modified radical mastectomies done for T1 breast cancers because of surgeon's advice or patient's choice? Am J Surg 1992;164:417-20.
30. Ward S, Heidrich S, Wolberg W. Factors women take into account when deciding upon type of surgery for breast cancer. Cancer Nurs 1989; 12:344-51.
31. Pierce PF. Deciding on breast cancer treatment: a description of decision behavior. Nurs Res 1993;42:22-8.
32. Annas GJ. Breast cancer: the treatment of choice. Hastings Cent Rep 1980;10(2):27-9.
33. Sugarman J, Powers M. How the doctor got gagged: the disintegrating right of privacy in the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1991;266: 3323-7.