Christopher M Dodgion1, Stuart R Lipsitz2, Marquita R Decker3, Yue-Yung Hu4, Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme3, Anita Karcz5, Leonard D'Avolio6, Caprice C Greenberg7. 1. Department of Surgery, Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research (WiSOR) Program, University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin; Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Surgery, Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research (WiSOR) Program, University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Institute for Health Metrics, Burlington, Massachusetts. 6. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), Boston, Massachusetts; Ariadne Labs: Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Surgery, Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research (WiSOR) Program, University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: greenberg@surgery.wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is significant institutional variation in the surgical care of breast cancer, and this may reflect access to services and resultant physician practice patterns. In previous studies, specialty care has been associated with variation in the operative treatment of breast cancer but has not been evaluated in a community setting. This study investigates these issues in a cohort of 59 community hospitals in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients receiving an operation for breast cancer (2006-2009) in a large, geographically diverse cohort of hospitals were obtained. Administrative data, autoabstracted cancer-specific variables from free text, and multiple other data sets were combined. Polymotous logistic regression with multilevel outcomes identified associations between these variables and surgical treatment. RESULTS: At 59 community hospitals, 4766 patients underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy, or mastectomy with reconstruction. The older patients were most likely to receive mastectomy alone, whereas the younger age group underwent more reconstruction (age <50), and BCS was most likely in patients aged 50-65. Surgical procedure also varied according to tumor characteristics. BCS was more likely at smaller hospitals, those with ambulatory surgery centers, and those located in nonmetropolitan areas. The likelihood of reconstruction doubled when there were more reconstructive surgeons in the health services area (P = 0.02). BCS was more likely when radiation oncology services were available within the hospital or network (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results for practice redesign is not straightforward. Although access to specialty care is statistically associated with type of breast surgical procedure, clinical impact is limited. It may be more effective to target other aspects of care to ensure each patient receives treatment consistent with her individual preferences.
BACKGROUND: There is significant institutional variation in the surgical care of breast cancer, and this may reflect access to services and resultant physician practice patterns. In previous studies, specialty care has been associated with variation in the operative treatment of breast cancer but has not been evaluated in a community setting. This study investigates these issues in a cohort of 59 community hospitals in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients receiving an operation for breast cancer (2006-2009) in a large, geographically diverse cohort of hospitals were obtained. Administrative data, autoabstracted cancer-specific variables from free text, and multiple other data sets were combined. Polymotous logistic regression with multilevel outcomes identified associations between these variables and surgical treatment. RESULTS: At 59 community hospitals, 4766 patients underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy, or mastectomy with reconstruction. The older patients were most likely to receive mastectomy alone, whereas the younger age group underwent more reconstruction (age <50), and BCS was most likely in patients aged 50-65. Surgical procedure also varied according to tumor characteristics. BCS was more likely at smaller hospitals, those with ambulatory surgery centers, and those located in nonmetropolitan areas. The likelihood of reconstruction doubled when there were more reconstructive surgeons in the health services area (P = 0.02). BCS was more likely when radiation oncology services were available within the hospital or network (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results for practice redesign is not straightforward. Although access to specialty care is statistically associated with type of breast surgical procedure, clinical impact is limited. It may be more effective to target other aspects of care to ensure each patient receives treatment consistent with her individual preferences.
Authors: Leonard W D'Avolio; Thien M Nguyen; Wildon R Farwell; Yongming Chen; Felicia Fitzmeyer; Owen M Harris; Louis D Fiore Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Caprice K Christian; Joyce Niland; Stephen B Edge; Rebecca A Ottesen; Melissa E Hughes; Richard Theriault; John Wilson; Charles A Hergrueter; Jane C Weeks Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Bradley V Watts; Brian Shiner; Lisa Zubkoff; Elizabeth Carpenter-Song; Julia M Ronconi; Craig M Coldwell Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Brian Shiner; Leonard W D'Avolio; Thien M Nguyen; Maha H Zayed; Bradley V Watts; Louis Fiore Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; David R Brenin; Maria D Kelly; William A Knaus; Craig L Slingluff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley; Paul Abrahamse; Monica Morrow; Christopher R Friese; Amy K Alderman; Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Timothy P Hofer Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Jing Jiang; Adeyiza O Momoh; Amy Alderman; Sharon H Giordano; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Kronowitz; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Danielle Riley; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary Charlton; Brian J Smith; Charles F Lynch Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 4.711