WOMEN with breast cancer make no difference to their survival chances by deciding to have a double mastectomy, new research suggests.
A study in California, based on data on 189,734 patients, found that women who had lumps removed followed by radiotherapy lived as long as those taking the drastic step of surgical removal of the breasts.
Lead scientist Dr Allison Kurian, from Stanford University, said: "We can now say that the average breast cancer patient who has bilateral mastectomy will have no better survival than the average patient who has lumpectomy plus radiation.
"Furthermore, a mastectomy is a major procedure that can require significant recovery time and may entail breast reconstruction, whereas a lumpectomy is much less invasive."
Long-term survival rates did not differ significantly between women who underwent a double mastectomy and those who received a lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. After 10 years, 19 per cent had died.
Survival rates were slightly worse for women who had one breast removed compared with breast-preserving treatment, possibly for socio-economic or ethnic reasons, said scientists.
A number of celebrities have had double mastectomy operations. American singer Anastacia, full name Anastacia Lyn Newkirk, underwent the surgery after being diagnosed with breast cancer for the second time. The multiple award-winning star, 45, announced the second diagnosis in February, cancelling her planned European tour. She said she is "in the final stages of recovery after undergoing a double mastectomy".
James Jopling, director for Scotland at Breakthrough Breast Cancer said double mastectomies are not routinely offered to women in Scotland unless they have a family history of breast cancer or a high risk of recurrence.
"Outside of these groups there is no evidence to suggest that this would be of benefit," he said.
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