This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

DOUGLASS G. WHITNEY, MD; ROGER F. SMITH, MD; D. EMERICK SZILAGYI, MD

AMA Arch Surg. 1964;88(4):637-644.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In recent years the rationale of the use of the classical radical mastectomy in the treatment of cancer of the breast has been questioned on several and often contradictory grounds: it has been judged both inadequate and excessively radical, and has also been pronounced essentially ineffective.^1,12,16 On examining the evidence, it is not difficult to see that the statistical foundation of much of this criticism is unconvincing. All too often data unsuited for comparison are compared, significant factors bearing on results neglected, and the vagaries of the biological behavior of breast cancer ignored. The influence on statistical inference of the last named factor is of particular interest since it profoundly affects the significance of the socalled five-year cure, an almost universal measuring standard of therapeutic success. In studying the late (post-five-year) survival of our patients we have been impressed by the importance of this factor and by the need . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
DETROIT

From the Department of General Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital.

Footnotes
Read before the 71st Annual Session of the Western Surgical Association, Galveston, Tex, Nov 21-23, 1963.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?