Erin P Ward1, Jonathan T Unkart1, Alex Bryant2, James Murphy3, Sarah L Blair4. 1. Department of Surgery, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. slblair@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of travel distance and insurance status on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates in breast cancer. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for women >18 years of age with a nonmetastatic primary breast cancer of ductal, lobular, or mixed histology. Patient- and facility-specific CPM rates were calculated based on insurance, race, and distance to treatment center. Standard univariable and multivariable regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, the CPM rate was 6.5% for the 864,105 patients identified. Most patients traveled <20 miles to a treatment center (79.5%) and had private insurance or Medicare (58.3 and 33.4%, respectively). In general, younger, White, non-Hispanic, and privately insured patients residing further from a treatment center was associated with increased rates of CPM. However, distance to the treatment center and insurance type had a greater absolute impact on rates of CPM for Black and Hispanic patients. Absolute CPM rate increases for patients >100 miles from a treatment center compared with those <20 miles from a treatment center were observed to be greater for Black and Hispanic patients (3.5 and 3.9%, respectively) compared with White and non-Hispanic patients (2.5 and 2.6%). Additionally, further patient travel distance was associated with higher treatment center-specific CPM rates. CONCLUSION: Increased travel distance is independently associated with increased rates of CPM for all patients and increased facility-specific rates of CPM. Black and Hispanic patients were found to be more vulnerable to the impact of travel distance and insurance status on rates of CPM.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of travel distance and insurance status on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates in breast cancer. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) for women >18 years of age with a nonmetastatic primary breast cancer of ductal, lobular, or mixed histology. Patient- and facility-specific CPM rates were calculated based on insurance, race, and distance to treatment center. Standard univariable and multivariable regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Overall, the CPM rate was 6.5% for the 864,105 patients identified. Most patients traveled <20 miles to a treatment center (79.5%) and had private insurance or Medicare (58.3 and 33.4%, respectively). In general, younger, White, non-Hispanic, and privately insured patients residing further from a treatment center was associated with increased rates of CPM. However, distance to the treatment center and insurance type had a greater absolute impact on rates of CPM for Black and Hispanic patients. Absolute CPM rate increases for patients >100 miles from a treatment center compared with those <20 miles from a treatment center were observed to be greater for Black and Hispanic patients (3.5 and 3.9%, respectively) compared with White and non-Hispanic patients (2.5 and 2.6%). Additionally, further patient travel distance was associated with higher treatment center-specific CPM rates. CONCLUSION: Increased travel distance is independently associated with increased rates of CPM for all patients and increased facility-specific rates of CPM. Black and Hispanic patients were found to be more vulnerable to the impact of travel distance and insurance status on rates of CPM.
Authors: Christian Lopez Ramos; Michael G Brandel; Jeffrey A Steinberg; Arvin R Wali; Robert C Rennert; David R Santiago-Dieppa; Reith R Sarkar; J Scott Pannell; James D Murphy; Alexander A Khalessi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: David W Lim; Helene Retrouvey; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Toni Zhong; Stefan O P Hofer; David R McCready; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ingrid M Lizarraga; Amanda R Kahl; Ellie Jacoby; Mary E Charlton; Charles F Lynch; Sonia L Sugg Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Jeffrey E Johnson; Paula D Strassle; Guilherme C de Oliveira; Chris B Agala; Philip Spanheimer; Kristalyn Gallagher; David Ollila; Hyman Muss; Stephanie Downs-Canner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Ho Jong Jeon; Hyung Seok Park; Ji Soo Park; Eun Ji Nam; Seung-Tae Lee; Jeongwoo Han Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 1.859