Steven J Katz1,2, Sarah T Hawley1,2,3, Ann S Hamilton4, Kevin C Ward5, Monica Morrow6, Reshma Jagsi7, Timothy P Hofer8. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Veterans Administration Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor VA Health Care System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 5. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor. 8. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development Service Center of Innovation and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
Importance: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community. Objective: To quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Results: A total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70% response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28% had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16% received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34% for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4% for surgeons who most favored initial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.
Importance: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community. Objective: To quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Results: A total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70% response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28% had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16% received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34% for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4% for surgeons who most favored initial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.
Authors: Kelly K Hunt; David M Euhus; Judy C Boughey; Anees B Chagpar; Sheldon M Feldman; Nora M Hansen; Swati A Kulkarni; David R McCready; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lee G Wilke; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Elizabeth B Habermann; Andrea Abbott; Helen M Parsons; Beth A Virnig; Waddah B Al-Refaie; Todd M Tuttle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mary B Daly; Robert Pilarski; Jennifer E Axilbund; Michael Berry; Saundra S Buys; Beth Crawford; Meagan Farmer; Susan Friedman; Judy E Garber; Seema Khan; Catherine Klein; Wendy Kohlmann; Allison Kurian; Jennifer K Litton; Lisa Madlensky; P Kelly Marcom; Sofia D Merajver; Kenneth Offit; Tuya Pal; Huma Rana; Gwen Reiser; Mark E Robson; Kristen Mahoney Shannon; Elizabeth Swisher; Nicoleta C Voian; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Alison Whelan; Myra J Wick; Georgia L Wiesner; Mary Dwyer; Rashmi Kumar; Susan Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Amy K Alderman; Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Natalie B Jones; John Wilson; Linda Kotur; Julie Stephens; William B Farrar; Doreen M Agnese Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kent A Griffith; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Steven J Katz; Nancy K Janz; Paul Abrahamse; Lauren P Wallner; Sarah T Hawley; Lawrence C An; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Thomas A D'Agostino; Abenaa M Brewster; Susan K Peterson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Patricia A Parker Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Rachel C Hooper; Jessica Hsu; Anthony Duncan; Jessica M Bensenhaver; Lisa A Newman; Kelly M Kidwell; Kevin C Chung; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Steven J Katz; Irina Bondarenko; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Allison W Kurian; Timothy P Hofer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Archana Radhakrishnan; Lauren P Wallner; Ted A Skolarus; Arvin K George; Bradley H Rosenberg; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 7.600
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: Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary C Schroeder; Ismail Jatoi; Sonia L Sugg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Laurel Hoeth; Elizabeth A Chrischilles Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ken Resnicow; Minal R Patel; M Chandler Mcleod; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Katharine Yao; Richard Bleicher; Meena Moran; Cecilia Chang; Jill Dietz; Vered Stearns; James Connolly; Terry Sarantou; Scott Kurtzman Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 4.452