BACKGROUND: Prior multi-institutional studies have reported a survival benefit of breast cancer treatment by surgical oncologists (SO) over general surgeons (GS). METHODS: Retrospective review tumor registry data of all breast cancer patients receiving primary treatment at a single institution from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2008. RESULTS: During the time period, there were 2192 patients who received primary breast cancer treatment at this institution. The mean age was 57 years and the mean follow-up was >55 months. Stage distribution was similar between GS and SO. Overall survival (SO 83.8% vs. GS 75.6%) and disease-free survival (SO 80.7% vs. GS 72.0%) was highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). For stages 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b there were statistically significant (P<0.05) differences for overall and disease-free survival. Overall, the use of breast conservation was more likely by SO-52.6 vs. 38.3% all stages and 65.8 vs. 54.0% for stage 0-2. The compliance with all systemic therapies (chemotherapy and hormone therapy) was more likely if being treated by SO-77.3 vs. 68.5% (P<0.02). The use of radiotherapy for breast conservation and in stage 3 mastectomy patients was higher for SO (P<0.001). Participation in clinical trials was far higher for SO patients-56.2 vs. GS 7.0% (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The value added by having primary breast cancer treatment by a SO seems to arise from the more successful completion of multidisciplinary care in a timely fashion and higher rates of clinical trial involvement.
BACKGROUND: Prior multi-institutional studies have reported a survival benefit of breast cancer treatment by surgical oncologists (SO) over general surgeons (GS). METHODS: Retrospective review tumor registry data of all breast cancerpatients receiving primary treatment at a single institution from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2008. RESULTS: During the time period, there were 2192 patients who received primary breast cancer treatment at this institution. The mean age was 57 years and the mean follow-up was >55 months. Stage distribution was similar between GS and SO. Overall survival (SO 83.8% vs. GS 75.6%) and disease-free survival (SO 80.7% vs. GS 72.0%) was highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). For stages 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b there were statistically significant (P<0.05) differences for overall and disease-free survival. Overall, the use of breast conservation was more likely by SO-52.6 vs. 38.3% all stages and 65.8 vs. 54.0% for stage 0-2. The compliance with all systemic therapies (chemotherapy and hormone therapy) was more likely if being treated by SO-77.3 vs. 68.5% (P<0.02). The use of radiotherapy for breast conservation and in stage 3 mastectomy patients was higher for SO (P<0.001). Participation in clinical trials was far higher for SO patients-56.2 vs. GS 7.0% (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The value added by having primary breast cancer treatment by a SO seems to arise from the more successful completion of multidisciplinary care in a timely fashion and higher rates of clinical trial involvement.
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; David J Press; Daphne Lichtensztajn; Theresa H M Keegan; Sarah J Shema; Gem M Le; Allison W Kurian Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Philip C De Witt Hamer; Eef J Hendriks; Emmanuel Mandonnet; Frederik Barkhof; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Hugues Duffau Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 3.240