Cirujano General

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2016, Issue 4

Campos A
The surgeon and underdetermination in breast cancer. The mammogram, from epistemic to moral dilemma
Cir Gen 2016; 38 (4)

Language: Español
References: 22
Page: 217-222
PDF: 4. Kb.

Full text


When confronted to mammographic images suggestive of malignancy, surgeons face a double dilemma, epistemic and moral. When they do not find coherence in the clinical guides and official norms, they make decisions on their own and solve both dilemmas pragmatically. Different organizations differ in the criteria of the recommendations and guidelines for breast cancer screening mammograms. Given that the underdetermination between theory and evidence makes it impossible for the thesis of these recommendations to be verified in isolation, they are also made using pragmatic but unconvincing criteria. In such a way, surgeons must first solve an epistemic dilemma, then a moral dilemma, and act on their intuitions. They use a defeasible reasoning, rationally convincing but epistemologically invalid. The effect is that their actions can be iatrogenic and go from the epistemically problematic to the morally problematic.

Key words: Breast cancer, mammogram, underdetermination, moral dilemma, bioethics.


  1. USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force) 2014. Grade Definitions After July 2012. What the Grades Mean and Suggestions for Practice. En: Grade Definitions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. October 2014. En: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/grade-definitions. Consultado el 21/04/2016.

  2. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, et al. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 347-360.

  3. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001; 358: 1340-1342.

  4. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. 2000; 355: 129-134.

  5. Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995; 273: 149-154.

  6. Semiglazov VF, Moiseenko VM, Protsenko SA, et al. Preliminary results of the Russia (St Petersburg)/WHO Program for the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Breast Self-Examination. Vopr Onkol. 1996; 42: 49-55. En: Gøtzsche & Olsen, 2000.

  7. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Self SG, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: methodology and preliminary results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89: 355-365. En: Olsen y Gøtzsche, 2001.

  8. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, et al; American Cancer Society. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015; 314: 1599-1614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783.

  9. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 279-296. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886.

  10. Radhakrishnan A, Nowak SA, Parker AM, Visvanathan K, Pollack CE. Physician breast cancer screening recommendations following guideline changes: results of a national survey. JAMA Internal Medicine. (E1, E2) Publicado en línea. Abril 10, 2017.

  11. American College of Obstetricians-Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 122: Breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 372-382. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31822c98e5.

  12. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-041-SSA2-2002, para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) 17 de septiembre, 2003.

  13. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-041-SSA2-2011, para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama. DOF, 9 de junio de 2011.

  14. Peterson EB, Ostroff JS, DuHamel KN, et al. Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2016; 93: 96-105. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.09.034.

  15. Grady D, Redberg RF. Physician adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. Publicado en línea, abril 10, 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0458.

  16. SEER*Stat Database: (1975-2012). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute Surveillance Research Program, 2015 (http://www .seer .cancer .gov).

  17. Welch GH, Prorock PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2017; 375: 1438-1447.

  18. Psillos S. Regularity theories. En: Beebee H, Hitchcock Ch, Menzies P. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 155 y ss.

  19. Hume D. A treatise of human nature. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford, Clarendon Press 1739 reimpr. 1888. Libro I, Parte III, §, pp. 170 y ss.

  20. Duhem P. [1914] The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, 2a. ed. (trad. P. W. Wiener de la v.o.: La Théorie Physique: Son Objet et sa Structure (Paris: Marcel Riviera & Cie.), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press; 1954. p.187.

  21. Quine WV. Two dogmas of empiricism. En: From a logical point of view. (2a. ed.) Harvard University Press; 1961. p. 20-46.

  22. Quine WV. On the reasons for indeterminacy of translation. The Journal of Philosophy. 1970; 67: 178-183.

>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2016, Issue 4

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019