OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between supply of subspecialty care and type of procedure preferentially performed for early stage breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Three surgical options exist for early stage breast cancer: (1) breast conserving surgery (BCS), (2) mastectomy with reconstruction (RECON), and (3) mastectomy alone. Current guidelines recommend that surgical treatment decisions should be based on patient preference if a patient is eligible for all 3. However, studies demonstrate persistent variation in the use of BCS and RECON. METHODS: Patients undergoing an operation for DCIS or stage I or II breast cancer at NCCN institutions between 2000 and 2006 were identified. Institutional procedure rates were determined. Spearman correlations measured the association between procedure types. Patient-level logistic regression models investigated predictors of procedure type and association with institutional supply of subspecialty care. RESULTS: Among 10,607 patients, 19% had mastectomy alone, 60% BCS, and 21% RECON. The institutional rate of BCS and RECON were strongly correlated (r = -0.80, P = 0.02). Institution was more important than all patient factors except age in predicting receipt of RECON or BCS. RECON was more likely for patients treated at an institution with a greater supply of reconstructive surgeons or where patients live further from radiation facilities. RECON was less likely at institutions with longer waiting times for surgery with reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Even within the NCCN, a consortium of multidisciplinary cancer centers, the use of BCS and mastectomy with reconstruction substantially varies by institution and correlates with the supply of subspecialty care.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between supply of subspecialty care and type of procedure preferentially performed for early stage breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Three surgical options exist for early stage breast cancer: (1) breast conserving surgery (BCS), (2) mastectomy with reconstruction (RECON), and (3) mastectomy alone. Current guidelines recommend that surgical treatment decisions should be based on patient preference if a patient is eligible for all 3. However, studies demonstrate persistent variation in the use of BCS and RECON. METHODS:Patients undergoing an operation for DCIS or stage I or II breast cancer at NCCN institutions between 2000 and 2006 were identified. Institutional procedure rates were determined. Spearman correlations measured the association between procedure types. Patient-level logistic regression models investigated predictors of procedure type and association with institutional supply of subspecialty care. RESULTS: Among 10,607 patients, 19% had mastectomy alone, 60% BCS, and 21% RECON. The institutional rate of BCS and RECON were strongly correlated (r = -0.80, P = 0.02). Institution was more important than all patient factors except age in predicting receipt of RECON or BCS. RECON was more likely for patients treated at an institution with a greater supply of reconstructive surgeons or where patients live further from radiation facilities. RECON was less likely at institutions with longer waiting times for surgery with reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Even within the NCCN, a consortium of multidisciplinary cancer centers, the use of BCS and mastectomy with reconstruction substantially varies by institution and correlates with the supply of subspecialty care.
Authors: P Ananian; G Houvenaeghel; C Protière; P Rouanet; S Arnaud; J P Moatti; A Tallet; A C Braud; C Julian-Reynier Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2004-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: U Veronesi; R Saccozzi; M Del Vecchio; A Banfi; C Clemente; M De Lena; G Gallus; M Greco; A Luini; E Marubini; G Muscolino; F Rilke; B Salvadori; A Zecchini; R Zucali Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1981-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: B Fisher; M Bauer; R Margolese; R Poisson; Y Pilch; C Redmond; E Fisher; N Wolmark; M Deutsch; E Montague Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1985-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennica Platt; Toni Zhong; Rahim Moineddin; Gillian L Booth; Alexandra M Easson; Kimberly Fernandes; Peter Gozdyra; Nancy N Baxter Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Christopher M Dodgion; Stuart R Lipsitz; Marquita R Decker; Yue-Yung Hu; Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme; Anita Karcz; Leonard D'Avolio; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Oyewale O Shiyanbola; Brian L Sprague; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Sally Herschorn; Ronald E Gangnon; Donald L Weaver; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marquita R Decker; David Y Greenblatt; Jeff Havlena; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg; Heather B Neuman Journal: Surgery Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Monica Morrow; Yun Li; Amy K Alderman; Reshma Jagsi; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Christine Vatovec; Mujde Z Erten; Jane Kolodinsky; Phil Brown; Marie Wood; Ted James; Brian L Sprague Journal: Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.807
Authors: Mark A Healy; Jason C Pradarelli; Robert W Krell; Scott E Regenbogen; Pasithorn A Suwanabol Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Chirag Shah; Frank A Vicini; Sameer Berry; Thomas B Julian; John Ben Wilkinson; Simona F Shaitelman; Atif Khan; Steven E Finkelstein; Neal Goldstein Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.339