Mehra Golshan1, Katya Losk2, Melissa A Mallory3, Kristen Camuso2, Susan Troyan3, Nancy U Lin4, Sarah Kadish2, Craig A Bunnell4. 1. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. mgolshan@partners.org. 2. Department of Quality and Patient Safety, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the multidisciplinary care model, breast imagers frequently provide second-opinion reviews of imaging studies performed at outside institutions. However, the need for additional imaging and timeliness of obtaining these studies has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the frequency of additional imaging orders by breast surgeons and to evaluate the impact of this supplementary imaging on timeliness of surgery. METHODS: We identified 2489 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent first definitive surgery (FDS) at our comprehensive cancer center between 2011 and 2013. The number of breast-specific imaging studies performed for each patient between initial consultation and FDS was obtained. χ (2) tests were used to quantify the proportion of patients undergoing additional imaging by surgeon. Interval time between initial consultation and additional imaging and/or biopsy was calculated. The delay of additional imaging on time to FDS was assessed by t test. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 615 (24.7 %) had at least one additional breast-specific imaging study performed between initial consultation and FDS, with 222 patients undergoing additional biopsies (8.9 %). The proportion of patients receiving imaging tests by breast surgeon ranged from 15 to 39 % (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving additional imaging had statistically longer wait times to FDS for BCT (21.4-28.5 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in the utilization of additional breast-specific imaging and in the timeliness of obtaining these tests among breast surgeons. Further research is warranted to assess the sources and impact of this variation on patient care, cost, and outcomes.
BACKGROUND: In the multidisciplinary care model, breast imagers frequently provide second-opinion reviews of imaging studies performed at outside institutions. However, the need for additional imaging and timeliness of obtaining these studies has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the frequency of additional imaging orders by breast surgeons and to evaluate the impact of this supplementary imaging on timeliness of surgery. METHODS: We identified 2489 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent first definitive surgery (FDS) at our comprehensive cancer center between 2011 and 2013. The number of breast-specific imaging studies performed for each patient between initial consultation and FDS was obtained. χ (2) tests were used to quantify the proportion of patients undergoing additional imaging by surgeon. Interval time between initial consultation and additional imaging and/or biopsy was calculated. The delay of additional imaging on time to FDS was assessed by t test. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 615 (24.7 %) had at least one additional breast-specific imaging study performed between initial consultation and FDS, with 222 patients undergoing additional biopsies (8.9 %). The proportion of patients receiving imaging tests by breast surgeon ranged from 15 to 39 % (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving additional imaging had statistically longer wait times to FDS for BCT (21.4-28.5 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in the utilization of additional breast-specific imaging and in the timeliness of obtaining these tests among breast surgeons. Further research is warranted to assess the sources and impact of this variation on patient care, cost, and outcomes.
Authors: Erik Liederbach; Mark Sisco; Chihsiung Wang; Catherine Pesce; Susan Sharpe; David J Winchester; Katharine Yao Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; Eric Ross; Yu-Ning Wong; Sameer A Patel; Marcia Boraas; Neal S Topham; Brian L Egleston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mehra Golshan; Katya Losk; Sarah Kadish; Nancy U Lin; Judith Hirshfield-Bartek; Linda Cutone; Yasuaki Sagara; Fatih Aydogan; Kristen Camuso; Saul N Weingart; Craig Bunnell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory; Katya Losk; Nancy U Lin; Yasuaki Sagara; Robyn L Birdwell; Linda Cutone; Kristen Camuso; Craig Bunnell; Fatih Aydogan; Mehra Golshan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J H Chang; E Vines; H Bertsch; D L Fraker; B J Czerniecki; E F Rosato; T Lawton; E F Conant; S G Orel; L Schuchter; K R Fox; N Zieber; J H Glick; L J Solin Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tara Lynn Spivey; Kjirsten Ayn Carlson; Imke Janssen; Thomas R Witt; Peter Jokich; Andrea Madrigrano Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Paul D Frederick; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: E Heeg; Y A Civil; M A Hillen; C H Smorenburg; L A E Woerdeman; E J Groen; H A O Winter-Warnars; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344