Editorial: Involving patients in the decision-making process regarding breast cancer treatment: Implications for surgery utilization

Women's Health

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 161-164

  Hawley, Sarah T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER INVASION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MASTECTOMY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RECURRENCE RISK; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 77649299336     PISSN: 17455057     EISSN: 17455065     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/whe.09.87     Document Type: Editorial

References (24)

1. Lerner BH: The Breast Cancer Wars: Hope, Fear and the Pursuit of a Cure in Twentieth Century American. Oxford University Press, NC, USA (2001).
2. Katz SJ, Hawley ST: From policy to patients and back: surgical treatment decision making for patients with breast cancer. Health Affairs 26(3), 761-769 (2007).
3. Mastectomy or lumpectomy? The choice of operation for clinical stages I and II breast cancer. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. CMAJ 158(Suppl. 3), S15-S21 (1998).
4. Scarth H, Cantin J, Levine M; The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer: Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: mastectomy or lumpectomy? The choice of operation for clinical stages I and II breast cancer (summary of the 2002 update). CMAJ 167(2), 154-155 (2002).
5. McCahill LE, Privette AR, Hart MR et al.: Are mastectomy rates a reasonable quality measure of breast cancer surgery? Am. J. Surg. 197(2), 216-221 (2009).
6. Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK et al.: Patterns and correlates of local therapy for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 3001-3007 (2005).
7. National Cancer Policy Board; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council: Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Hewitt M, Simone JV (Eds). National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (1999).
8. Wennberg JE: Unwanted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 325, 961-964 (2002).
9. Montini T: Resist and redirect: physicians respond to breast cancer informed consent legislation. Women Health 26, 85-104 (1997).
10. Hawley ST, Hamilton AS, Graff JJ et al.: Decision involvement and receipt of mastectomy among racially and ethnically diveres breast cancer patients. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101(19), 1337-1447 (2009).
11. Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK et al.: Patient involvement in surgical treatment deiciosns for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(24), 5526-5533 (2005).
12. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman A et al.: Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA 302(14), 1551-1556 (2009).
13. O'Connor AM, Mulley AG Jr, Wennberg JE: Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95(8), 570-571 (2003).
14. Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Silvia K, Partridge A, Mulley AG Jr: An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ. Couns. 65(2), 261-269 (2007).
15. Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF et al.: Can women with early stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? J. Clin. Oncol. 27(4), 519-525 (2009).
16. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al.: Twenty year follow up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1233-1241 (2002).
17. Truong PT, Olivotto IA, Kader HA, Panades M, Speers CH, Berthelet E: Selecting patients with T1-T2 tumors and 1-3 positive axiallary nodes at high postmastectomy locoregional recurrence risk for adjuvant radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 61(5), 1337-1347 (2005).
18. Hawley ST, Fagerlin A, Janz NK, Katz SJ: Racial/ethnic disparities in knowledge about the risks and benefits of breast cancer treatment: does it matter where you go. Health Serv. Res. 43(4), 1366-1387 (2008).
19. Nold RJ, Beamer RL, Helmer SD, McBoyle F: Factors influencing a woman's choice to undergo breast conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy. Am. J. Surg. 180(6), 413-418 (2000).
20. Janz NK, Mujahid M, Hawley S T, Griggs JJ, Hamilton A, Katz SJ: Racial/ethnic differences in adequacy of information and support for women with breast cancer. Cancer 113, 1058-1067 (2008).
21. Hawley ST, Janz NK, Hamilton A et al.: Latina patient perspectives about informed treatment decision making for breast cancer. Patient Educ. Couns. 73(2), 363-370 (2008).
22. Maly RC., Umezawa Y, Leake B, Silliman RA: Determinants of participation in treatment decision-making by older breast cancer patients, Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 85(3), 201-209 (2004).
23. Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A et al.: Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv. Res. 40(3), 745-767 (2005).
24. Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA: Not all patients want to participate in decision making. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20, 531-535 (2005).