OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB) rates remain well below guideline recommendations of more than 90% and vary across geographic areas. Our aim was to determine the variation in use attributable to the surgeon and facility and determine the patient, surgeon, and facility characteristics associated with the use of MIBB. METHODS: We used 100% Texas Medicare claims data (2000-2008) to identify women older than 66 years with a breast biopsy (open or minimally invasive) and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis/operation within 1 year. The percentage of patients undergoing MIBB as the first diagnostic modality was estimated for each surgeon and facility. Three-level hierarchical generalized linear models (patients clustered within surgeons within facilities) were used to evaluate variation in MIBB use. RESULTS: A total of 22,711 patients underwent a breast cancer operation by 1226 surgeons at 525 facilities. MIBB was the initial diagnostic modality in 62.4% of cases. Only 7.0% of facilities and 12.9% of surgeons used MIBB for more than 90% of patients. In 3-level models adjusted for patient characteristics, the percentage of patients who received MIBB ranged from 7.5% to 96.0% across facilities (mean = 50.1%, median = 49.2%) and from 8.0% to 87.0% across surgeons (mean = 50.3%, median = 50.9%). The variance in MIBB use was attributable to facility (8.8%) and surgeon (15.4%) characteristics. Lower surgeon and facility volume, longer surgeon years in practice, and smaller facility bed size were associated with lower rates of MIBB use. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of surgeon and facility characteristics associated with low use of MIBB provides potential targets for interventions to improve MIBB rates and decrease variation in use. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort.
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB) rates remain well below guideline recommendations of more than 90% and vary across geographic areas. Our aim was to determine the variation in use attributable to the surgeon and facility and determine the patient, surgeon, and facility characteristics associated with the use of MIBB. METHODS: We used 100% Texas Medicare claims data (2000-2008) to identify women older than 66 years with a breast biopsy (open or minimally invasive) and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis/operation within 1 year. The percentage of patients undergoing MIBB as the first diagnostic modality was estimated for each surgeon and facility. Three-level hierarchical generalized linear models (patients clustered within surgeons within facilities) were used to evaluate variation in MIBB use. RESULTS: A total of 22,711 patients underwent a breast cancer operation by 1226 surgeons at 525 facilities. MIBB was the initial diagnostic modality in 62.4% of cases. Only 7.0% of facilities and 12.9% of surgeons used MIBB for more than 90% of patients. In 3-level models adjusted for patient characteristics, the percentage of patients who received MIBB ranged from 7.5% to 96.0% across facilities (mean = 50.1%, median = 49.2%) and from 8.0% to 87.0% across surgeons (mean = 50.3%, median = 50.9%). The variance in MIBB use was attributable to facility (8.8%) and surgeon (15.4%) characteristics. Lower surgeon and facility volume, longer surgeon years in practice, and smaller facility bed size were associated with lower rates of MIBB use. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of surgeon and facility characteristics associated with low use of MIBB provides potential targets for interventions to improve MIBB rates and decrease variation in use. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort.
Authors: Jared H Linebarger; Jeffrey Landercasper; Richard L Ellis; Jacob D Gundrum; Kristen A Marcou; Brooke M De Maiffe; Jane M Hudak; Jeremiah J Andersen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Richelle T Williams; Katharine Yao; Andrew K Stewart; David J Winchester; Mary Turk; Addie Gorchow; Nora Jaskowiak; David P Winchester Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tara M Breslin; Jamie Caughran; Jane Pettinga; Cheryl Wesen; Ann Mehringer; Huiying Yin; David Share; Samuel M Silver Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Peter Lovrics; Nicole Hodgson; Mary Ann O'Brien; Lehana Thabane; Sylvie Cornacchi; Angela Coates; Barbara Heller; Susan Reid; Kenneth Sanders; Marko Simunovic Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Wendy Bruening; Joann Fontanarosa; Kelley Tipton; Jonathan R Treadwell; Jason Launders; Karen Schoelles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Therese B Bevers; Benjamin O Anderson; Ermelinda Bonaccio; Saundra Buys; Sandra Buys; Mary B Daly; Peter J Dempsey; William B Farrar; Irving Fleming; Judy E Garber; Randall E Harris; Alexandra S Heerdt; Mark Helvie; John G Huff; Nazanin Khakpour; Seema A Khan; Helen Krontiras; Gary Lyman; Elizabeth Rafferty; Sara Shaw; Mary Lou Smith; Theodore N Tsangaris; Cheryl Williams; Thomas Yankeelov; Thomas Yaneeklov Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Luke G Gutwein; Darwin N Ang; Huazhi Liu; Julia K Marshall; Steven N Hochwald; Edward M Copeland; Stephen R Grobmyer Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Aaron J Feinstein; Pamela R Soulos; Jessica B Long; Jeph Herrin; Kenneth B Roberts; James B Yu; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; William J Ehlenbach; Hannah Wunsch; Colin R Cooke Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Scott C Brancato; Mansen Wang; Kateri J Spinelli; Maheer Gandhavadi; Neil K Worrall; Eric J Lehr; Zach M DeBoard; Torin P Fitton; Alison Leiataua; Jonathan P Piccini; Ty J Gluckman Journal: Heart Rhythm O2 Date: 2021-12-24