Why majority choose mastectomy not lumpectomy??

My tumor was just behind the nipple. I have very small breasts. If I had a lumpectomy, I would have lost my nipple and most of my breast so I would have been really deformed. A mastectomy gave me a 'better' result. I also wanted to avoid radiation and by having the mastectomy I was able to do so (cause I didn't have lymph node involvement and my tumor wasn't too close to the chest wall.) My tumor was on the left side and I was afraid of future damage to my heart because of radiation. I know radiation is supposed to be safe, but I wanted to avoid it if possible cause a technician who does echo cardiograms warned me about the possibility of heart damage years later due to radiation.

If I have a lumpectomy I will have to have radiation, which I don't want for a number of reasons. Delicate skin, potential heart damage, the fact that I have been exposed to non negligible levels of radiation already due to a set of circumstance s. I also have a family history of bilateral breast cancer and I have very dense breasts...in fact my cancer was misdiagnosed for two years. By not removing the other breast I am taking a chance of getting cancer in it and having it missed again.

I had several tumors (four) in different locations in my left breast. A lumpectomy would have left me deformed and my margins may not have been clear.

overall survival rates are the same lx vs mx but mx has less risk of recurrence. I want my risk to be as little as possible. Prefer not to deal with this b*tch again in any form if I don't have to. Mx is no picnic but rads are no picnic either. Both can be disfiguring, however skin/nipple sparing mx with recon is typically the least disfiguring and in many cases you can't tell anything was done and skin quality is good as it hasn’t been compromised by rads

Radiation isn't without risks and long term difficulties. I had no desire to put my body through that. In addition, I saw no reason to "save" my breast. A lumpectomy would have resulted in a weird (to me) looking breast. As I had no reason to save my breast (i.e. future breastfeeding), I had no motivation to keep them.

Also, no more need for mammograms.

Biggest issue for me was radiation.

I feel like a lot of us on here have chosen lumpectomy.

I wasn't really given a choice, because my left side DCIS was so large. I mean I could have said, No....but the treatment for me was a DMX. I think, I have met more women choosing a lumpectomy since my diagnosis. I know on these boards I feel there is good split of women with lump vs MX.

Whenever possible, doctors usually go with the most conservative surgery, in the case of bc that would be lumpectomy. Obviously it is not always possible, but as VR pointed out, more often than not it is. Fortunately we're not in the bad old days any more, when docs took every bit of tissue and muscle regardless of pathology.

It probably seems like more women choose mastectomy because they're likely to post more. The surgery is more extensive and if they choose reconstruction there is that to discuss as well. Though my doctors told me I could have a mastectomy, they really pushed for the lumpectomy with radiation and I went with their recommendations. The location of my tumor combined with the effects of the radiation mutilated my breast. I am currently going through fat grafting to fill the area out and it is turning out nicely. I just had a mammogram last week and they could hardly tell anything had been done.