BACKGROUND: Needle biopsy to diagnose breast cancer may soon become a quality measure for which hospitals are held accountable. This study examines the utilization of needle versus excisional biopsy in a contemporary cohort of patients and identifies factors associated with biopsy type. METHODS: Women with nonmetastatic, clinical Tis-T3 breast cancers diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 were selected from the National Cancer Data Base, which captures information from ~79% of breast cancers in the United States. Patients whose cancer was diagnosed by needle biopsy (fine-needle aspiration or core) were compared with patients diagnosed via excision, analyzing patient, hospital, and tumor characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify important predictors of biopsy type. RESULTS: Of 373,837 patients, 303,677 (81.2%) underwent needle biopsy while 70,160 (18.8%) had excisional biopsy to diagnose their cancer. The needle biopsy rate increased from 73.8 to 86.7% whereas excisional biopsy declined from 26.2 to 13.3% over the study period (P < 0.001). In 2008, patients were statistically significantly more likely to undergo excisional biopsy if they had stage 0 disease; were treated at low-volume (<25 cases/year), community, or Atlantic census region hospitals; were <40 years old at diagnosis; were less educated; or were Asian/Pacific Islander (P < 0.001). The median rate of needle biopsy at high-volume hospitals (≥140 cases/year) was 89.6%. CONCLUSION: The use of needle biopsy is increasing. Tumor stage, hospital volume, and hospital location were the most statistically significant predictors of biopsy type. Rates of needle biopsy at high-volume hospitals suggest that appropriate utilization of this preferred diagnostic method should approach 90%.
BACKGROUND: Needle biopsy to diagnose breast cancer may soon become a quality measure for which hospitals are held accountable. This study examines the utilization of needle versus excisional biopsy in a contemporary cohort of patients and identifies factors associated with biopsy type. METHODS:Women with nonmetastatic, clinical Tis-T3 breast cancers diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 were selected from the National Cancer Data Base, which captures information from ~79% of breast cancers in the United States. Patients whose cancer was diagnosed by needle biopsy (fine-needle aspiration or core) were compared with patients diagnosed via excision, analyzing patient, hospital, and tumor characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify important predictors of biopsy type. RESULTS: Of 373,837 patients, 303,677 (81.2%) underwent needle biopsy while 70,160 (18.8%) had excisional biopsy to diagnose their cancer. The needle biopsy rate increased from 73.8 to 86.7% whereas excisional biopsy declined from 26.2 to 13.3% over the study period (P < 0.001). In 2008, patients were statistically significantly more likely to undergo excisional biopsy if they had stage 0 disease; were treated at low-volume (<25 cases/year), community, or Atlantic census region hospitals; were <40 years old at diagnosis; were less educated; or were Asian/Pacific Islander (P < 0.001). The median rate of needle biopsy at high-volume hospitals (≥140 cases/year) was 89.6%. CONCLUSION: The use of needle biopsy is increasing. Tumor stage, hospital volume, and hospital location were the most statistically significant predictors of biopsy type. Rates of needle biopsy at high-volume hospitals suggest that appropriate utilization of this preferred diagnostic method should approach 90%.
Authors: Nina P Tamirisa; Kristin M Sheffield; Abhishek D Parmar; Christopher J Zimmermann; Deepak Adhikari; Gabriela M Vargas; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Richard C Gilmore; Peiqi Wang; Katerina Kaczmarski; Susan Hutfless; David M Euhus; Lisa K Jacobs; Mehran Habibi; Julie Lange; Melissa Camp; Martin A Makary Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tracy M Layne; Jenerius A Aminawung; Pamela R Soulos; Marcella Nunez-Smith; Maxine A Nunez; Beth A Jones; Karen H Wang; Cary P Gross Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Sophia S Y Chan; Denise Lee; Maria Prisca Meivita; Lunna Li; Yaw Sing Tan; Natasa Bajalovic; Desmond K Loke Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Christopher J Zimmermann; Kristin M Sheffield; Casey B Duncan; Yimei Han; Catherine D Cooksley; Courtney M Townsend; Taylor S Riall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Ying Xu; Grace L Smith; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; Thomas A Buchholz; Kelly K Hunt; Dalliah M Black; Sharon H Giordano; Gary J Whitman; Wei Yang; Chan Shen; Linda Elting; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544