Beiqun Zhao1, Catherine Tsai1, Kelly K Hunt2, Sarah L Blair1. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, California. 2. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to evidence-based standards can lead to improved outcomes for patients with breast cancer. However, adherence rates to standards and their effects on patient outcomes are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine adherence rates to standards compiled by the American College of Surgeons Clinical Research Program and its effects on patient outcomes. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2015), we identified cohorts of breast cancer patients: clinical T1N0M0 under age of 70 (cT1), clinical T2N0M0 or T3N0M0 (cT2/3), and clinical M0 and pathologic N2 or N3 (pN2/3). Standards included negative margins, any adjuvant therapy, and two or more lymph nodes (LNs) examined (for cT1 or cT2/3 patients) or more than 10 LNs examined (for pN2/3 patients). We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: We identified 318 853 (65.0%) cT1, 164 593 (67.3%) cT2/3, and 77 626 (67.7%) pN2/3 patients who met the standards. More than 90% of patients had negative margins and adjuvant therapy, but less than 80% met LN standards. The median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients who met the standards. Individual components of the standards were predictors of improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients did not meet the evidence-based standards in their treatment for breast cancer. Efforts to improve the knowledge of and adherence to these standards should be emphasized. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Adherence to evidence-based standards can lead to improved outcomes for patients with breast cancer. However, adherence rates to standards and their effects on patient outcomes are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine adherence rates to standards compiled by the American College of Surgeons Clinical Research Program and its effects on patient outcomes. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2015), we identified cohorts of breast cancerpatients: clinical T1N0M0 under age of 70 (cT1), clinical T2N0M0 or T3N0M0 (cT2/3), and clinical M0 and pathologic N2 or N3 (pN2/3). Standards included negative margins, any adjuvant therapy, and two or more lymph nodes (LNs) examined (for cT1 or cT2/3patients) or more than 10 LNs examined (for pN2/3patients). We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: We identified 318 853 (65.0%) cT1, 164 593 (67.3%) cT2/3, and 77 626 (67.7%) pN2/3patients who met the standards. More than 90% of patients had negative margins and adjuvant therapy, but less than 80% met LN standards. The median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients who met the standards. Individual components of the standards were predictors of improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients did not meet the evidence-based standards in their treatment for breast cancer. Efforts to improve the knowledge of and adherence to these standards should be emphasized. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
National Cancer Database; breast cancer; evidence-based; operative standards
Authors: Tina J Hieken; William R Burns; Amanda B Francescatti; Arden M Morris; Sandra L Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Jacqueline M Soegaard Ballester; Kristin E Goodsell; Jae P Ermer; Giorgos C Karakousis; John T Miura; Nicole M Saur; Najjia N Mahmoud; Ari Brooks; Julia C Tchou; Peter E Gabriel; Lawrence N Shulman; Heather Wachtel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shivani N Mehta; Edna C Shenvi; Sarah L Blair; Abigail Caudle; Lisa M Lowenstein; Kaitlyn J Kelly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 4.339