Literature DB >> 21987038

Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands.

Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo1, Linda de Munck, Otto Visser, Pieter J Westenend, Thijs van Dalen, Marian B Menke, Emiel J Rutgers, Petra H Peeters.   

Abstract

Surgical margin status after first breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is used as a quality indicator of breast cancer care in the Netherlands. The aim is to describe the variation in surgical margin status between hospitals. 7,345 patients with DCIS or invasive cancer (T1-2,N0-1,M0) diagnosed between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, who underwent BCS as first surgery, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were treated in 96 hospitals. Maximum target values were 30% 'focally positive' or 'more than focally positive' for DCIS and 10% 'more than focally positive' for invasive carcinoma. Results per hospital are presented in funnel plots. For invasive carcinoma, multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for case mix. Overall 28.5% (95% CI: 25.5-31.4%) of DCIS and 9.1% (95% CI: 8.4-9.8%) of invasive carcinoma had positive margins. Variation between hospitals was substantial. 6 and 10 hospitals, respectively, for DCIS and invasive cancer showed percentages above the upper limit of agreement. Case mix correction led to significant different conclusions for 5 hospitals. After case mix correction, 10 hospitals showed significant higher rates, while 7 hospitals showed significant lower rates. High rates were not related to breast cancer patient volume or type of hospital (teaching vs. non-teaching). Higher rates were related to hospitals where the policy is to aim for BCS instead of mastectomy. The overall percentage of positive margins in the Netherlands is within the predefined targets. The variation between hospitals is substantial but can be largely explained by coincidence. Case mix correction leads to relevant shifts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21987038     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1809-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  5 in total

1.  The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care.

Authors:  Francesca Tamburelli; Riccardo Ponzone
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Real-time wireless tumor tracking during breast conserving surgery.

Authors:  Natasja Janssen; Roeland Eppenga; Marie-Jeanne Vrancken Peeters; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Hester Oldenburg; Jos van der Hage; Emiel Rutgers; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Koert Kuhlmann; Theo Ruers; Jasper Nijkamp
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 3.  Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it?

Authors:  N Bijker; M Donker; J Wesseling; G J den Heeten; E J Th Rutgers
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2013-03

4.  Associations of hospital volume and hospital competition with short-term, middle-term and long-term patient outcomes after breast cancer surgery: a retrospective population-based study.

Authors:  Wouter van der Schors; Ron Kemp; Jolanda van Hoeve; Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen; John Maduro; Marie-Jeanne Vrancken Peeters; Sabine Siesling; Marco Varkevisser
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  Optimal Treatment Strategy in Rectal Cancer Surgery: Should We Be Cowboys or Chickens?

Authors:  Heleen S Snijders; Nicoline J van Leersum; Daan Henneman; Alexander C de Vries; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Anne M Stiggelbout; Michel W J M Wouters; Jan Willem T Dekker
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 5.344

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.