NEARLY three-quarters of women who have both breasts removed after a cancer diagnosis may be wrong to take the drastic step, a study has suggested.
Researchers who studied 1,447 women treated for breast cancer found that 8 per cent of them had undergone a double mastectomy.
But 70 per cent of these women did not meet the medically approved criteria for losing both breasts - a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene mutations.
They had a very low risk of developing cancer in the healthy breast, the US scientists said.
Study leader Dr Sarah Hawley, from the University of Michigan, said: "Women appear to be using worry over cancer recurrence to choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.
"This does not make sense, because having a non-affected breast removed will not reduce the risk of recurrence in the affected breast.
"For women who do not have a strong family history or a genetic finding, we would argue it's probably not appropriate to get the unaffected breast removed."
The research, published in the journal JAMA Surgery, also found that 18 per cent of the women studied had considered a double mastectomy.
The new research coincides with former Dancing With The Stars host Samantha Harris making public her decision to have a double mastectomy following a diagnosis of breast cancer.
She was praised by Baroness Delyth Morgan, chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign charity, for raising "awareness of the fact that breast cancer can occur at any age".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article