Literature DB >> 24912900

Surgeon influence on use of needle biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a national medicare study.

Jan M Eberth1, Ying Xu1, Grace L Smith1, Yu Shen1, Jing Jiang1, Thomas A Buchholz1, Kelly K Hunt1, Dalliah M Black1, Sharon H Giordano1, Gary J Whitman1, Wei Yang1, Chan Shen1, Linda Elting1, Benjamin D Smith2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Use of needle biopsy is a proposed quality measure in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, yet prior literature documents underuse. Nationally, little is known regarding the contribution of a patient's surgeon to needle biopsy use, and knowledge regarding downstream impact of needle biopsy on breast cancer care is incomplete.
METHODS: Using 2003 to 2007 nationwide Medicare data from 89,712 patients with breast cancer and 12,405 surgeons, logistic regression evaluated the following three outcomes: surgeon consultation before versus after biopsy, use of needle biopsy (yes or no), and number of surgeries for cancer treatment. Multilevel analyses were adjusted for physician, patient, and structural covariates.
RESULTS: Needle biopsy was used in 68.4% (n = 61,353) of all patients and only 53.7% of patients seen by a surgeon before biopsy (n = 32,953/61,312). Patient factors associated with surgeon consultation before biopsy included Medicaid coverage, rural residence, residence more than 8.1 miles from a radiologic facility performing needle biopsy, and no mammogram within 60 days before consultation. Among patients with surgeon consultation before biopsy, surgeon factors such as absence of board certification, training outside the United States, low case volume, earlier decade of medical school graduation, and lack of specialization in surgical oncology were negatively correlated with receipt of needle biopsy. Risk of multiple cancer surgeries was 33.7% for patients undergoing needle biopsy compared with 69.6% for those who did not (adjusted relative risk, 2.08; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Needle biopsy is underused in the United States, resulting in a negative impact on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Surgeon-level interventions may improve needle biopsy rates and, accordingly, quality of care.
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24912900      PMCID: PMC4164811          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.8257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  24 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique.

Authors:  B M Ljung; A Drejet; N Chiampi; J Jeffrey; W H Goodson; K Chew; D H Moore; T R Miller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-08-25       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 2.  Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Melvin J Silverstein; Michael D Lagios; Abram Recht; D Craig Allred; Steven E Harms; Roland Holland; Dennis R Holmes; Lorie L Hughes; Roger J Jackman; Thomas B Julian; Henry M Kuerer; Helen C Mabry; David R McCready; Kelly M McMasters; David L Page; Steve H Parker; Helen A Pass; Mark Pegram; Eva Rubin; A Thomas Stavros; Debasish Tripathy; Frank Vicini; Pat W Whitworth
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes.

Authors:  J Zhang; K F Yu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists.

Authors:  L Bassett; D P Winchester; R B Caplan; D D Dershaw; K Dowlatshahi; W P Evans; L L Fajardo; P L Fitzgibbons; D E Henson; R V Hutter; M Morrow; J R Paquelet; S E Singletary; J Curry; P Wilcox-Buchalla; M Zinninger
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Sheng Wu; Catherine M Crespi; Weng Kee Wong
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

Authors:  Michael N Neuss; Christopher E Desch; Kristen K McNiff; Peter D Eisenberg; Dean H Gesme; Joseph O Jacobson; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Jennifer J Padberg; John M Rainey; Jeff J Guo; Joseph V Simone
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-08-08       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data.

Authors:  C N Klabunde; A L Potosky; J M Legler; J L Warren
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Accuracy of sonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Michael Koretz; Semyon Shcharynsky; Victoria Makarov; Selwyn Strano
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 0.910

10.  An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer.

Authors:  Ann B Nattinger; Purushottam W Laud; Ruta Bajorunaite; Rodney A Sparapani; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  11 in total

1.  Creating a National Provider Identifier (NPI) to Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) Crosswalk for Medicare Data.

Authors:  Helen M Parsons; Lindsey R Enewold; Robert Banks; Michael J Barrett; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Disparities in Breast Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Quality of Care among African American and European American Women in South Carolina.

Authors:  Marsha E Samson; Nancy G Porter; Deborah M Hurley; Swann A Adams; Jan M Eberth
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 0.954

3.  Evaluating the effect of clinical care pathways on quality of cancer care: analysis of breast, colon and rectal cancer pathways.

Authors:  Han Bao; Fengjuan Yang; Shaofei Su; Xinyu Wang; Meiqi Zhang; Yaming Xiao; Hao Jiang; Jiaying Wang; Meina Liu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  The influence of preoperative biopsy on the surgical method in breast cancer patients: a single-center experience of 3,966 cases in China.

Authors:  Rongyue Teng; Qun Wei; Jichun Zhou; Mingjun Dong; Lidan Jin; Wenxian Hu; Jida Chen; Linbo Wang; Wenhe Zhao
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-03

5.  The quality of invasive breast cancer care for low reimbursement rate patients: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Shaofei Su; Han Bao; Xinyu Wang; Zhiqiang Wang; Xi Li; Meiqi Zhang; Jiaying Wang; Hao Jiang; Wenji Wang; Siyang Qu; Meina Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Development of diagnostic SCAR markers for genomic DNA amplifications in breast carcinoma by DNA cloning of high-GC RAMP-PCR fragments.

Authors:  Shangyi Fu; Jingliang Cheng; Chunli Wei; Luquan Yang; Xiuli Xiao; Dianzheng Zhang; M David Stewart; Junjiang Fu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-07-04

7.  Association of Insurance Status with the Use of Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Women with Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Dario Pasalic; Jing Jiang; Reshma Jagsi; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2017-07-26

8.  Assessment of Nonradioactive Multispectral Optoacoustic Tomographic Imaging With Conventional Lymphoscintigraphic Imaging for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Melanoma.

Authors:  Ingo Stoffels; Philipp Jansen; Maximilian Petri; Lukas Goerdt; Titus J Brinker; Klaus G Griewank; Thorsten D Poeppel; Dirk Schadendorf; Joachim Klode
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-08-02

9.  Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery for cancer in Australia: statewide cohort study of linked hospital data.

Authors:  Marina T van Leeuwen; Michael O Falster; Claire M Vajdic; Philip J Crowe; Sanja Lujic; Elizabeth Klaes; Louisa Jorm; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  The association between methods of biopsy and survival following breast cancer: A hospital registry based cohort study.

Authors:  Yek-Ching Kong; Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy; Michael O'Rorke; Shridevi Subramaniam; Nanthini T Bhoo-Pathy; Mee-Hoong See; Suniza Jamaris; Kean-Hooi Teoh; Anita Z Bustam; Lai-Meng Looi; Nur Aishah Taib; Cheng-Har Yip
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.