PURPOSE: Recent changes have occurred in the presurgical planning for breast cancer, including the introduction of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We sought to analyze the trends in mastectomy rates and the relationship to preoperative MRI and surgical year at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 5,405 patients who underwent surgery between 1997 and 2006. Patients undergoing MRI were identified from a prospective database. Trends in mastectomy rate and the association of MRI with surgery type were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of surgery year and MRI on surgery type, while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Mastectomy rates differed significantly across time (P < .0001), and decreased from 45% in 1997% to 31% in 2003, followed by increasing rates for 2004 to 2006. The use of MRI increased from 10% in 2003% to 23% in 2006 (P < .0001). Patients with MRI were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those without MRI (54% v 36%; P < .0001). However, mastectomy rates increased from 2004 to 2006 predominantly among patients without MRI (29% in 2003% to 41% in 2006; P < .0001). In a multivariable model, both MRI (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P < .0001) and surgical year (compared to 2003 OR: 1.4 for 2004, 1.8 for 2005, and 1.7 for 2006; P < .0001) were independent predictors of mastectomy. CONCLUSION: After a steady decline, mastectomy rates have increased in recent years with both surgery year and MRI as significant predictors for type of surgery. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of MRI and other factors influencing surgical planning.
PURPOSE: Recent changes have occurred in the presurgical planning for breast cancer, including the introduction of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We sought to analyze the trends in mastectomy rates and the relationship to preoperative MRI and surgical year at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 5,405 patients who underwent surgery between 1997 and 2006. Patients undergoing MRI were identified from a prospective database. Trends in mastectomy rate and the association of MRI with surgery type were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the effect of surgery year and MRI on surgery type, while adjusting for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: Mastectomy rates differed significantly across time (P < .0001), and decreased from 45% in 1997% to 31% in 2003, followed by increasing rates for 2004 to 2006. The use of MRI increased from 10% in 2003% to 23% in 2006 (P < .0001). Patients with MRI were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those without MRI (54% v 36%; P < .0001). However, mastectomy rates increased from 2004 to 2006 predominantly among patients without MRI (29% in 2003% to 41% in 2006; P < .0001). In a multivariable model, both MRI (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P < .0001) and surgical year (compared to 2003 OR: 1.4 for 2004, 1.8 for 2005, and 1.7 for 2006; P < .0001) were independent predictors of mastectomy. CONCLUSION: After a steady decline, mastectomy rates have increased in recent years with both surgery year and MRI as significant predictors for type of surgery. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of MRI and other factors influencing surgical planning.
Authors: H Eerola; P Vahteristo; L Sarantaus; P Kyyrönen; S Pyrhönen; C Blomqvist; E Pukkala; H Nevanlinna; R Sankila Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P J Drew; L W Turnbull; S Chatterjee; J Read; P J Carleton; J N Fox; J R Monson; M J Kerin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: D Stoppa-Lyonnet; Y Ansquer; H Dreyfus; C Gautier; M Gauthier-Villars; E Bourstyn; K B Clough; H Magdelénat; P Pouillart; A Vincent-Salomon; A Fourquet; B Asselain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lawrence J Solin; Susan G Orel; Wei-Ting Hwang; Eleanor E Harris; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amy K Alderman; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer Waljee; Mahasin Mujahid; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Roger T Anderson; Cyllene R Morris; Gretchen Kimmick; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Fabian Camacho; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Susan A Sabatino; Steven T Fleming; Joseph Lipscomb Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Min Yi; Kelly K Hunt; Banu K Arun; Isabelle Bedrosian; Angelica Gutierrez Barrera; Kim-Anh Do; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kaylene Ready; Jennifer Litton; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-07-20
Authors: Kaoru Itakura; Juan Lessing; Theadora Sakata; Amy Heinzerling; Eline Vriens; Dorota Wisner; Michael Alvarado; Laura Esserman; Cheryl Ewing; Nola Hylton; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mary C Mahoney; Mitchell D Schnall; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 11.105