Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can see why it would be the knee-jerk reaction to "get rid of the breasts" to get rid of the cancer, but if it doesn't increase survivability long term, then I don't really get it, KWIM?
What the article did not discuss is that more women are opting for mastectomies because they are less expensive than lumpectomies, which require radiotherapy protocol. The radiology oncology centers are few and far between and not always within insurance companies' networks. Radiology following lumpectomy requires a daily routine, and in some cases twice a day dosage of radiation, which makes it difficult for women to access this care. The cost does not include lost wages and transportation necessary to obtain this treatment. Recurrence of cancer for the same breast for a mastectomy is zero (for obvious reasons). Breast preservation is more costly than radical mastectomy, so many women who do not have the means, or are older and find less need to preserve their breasts opt for this rather than have to risk the occurence, and yet another expense a second time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
