Austin D Williams1, Robin Ciocca2, Jennifer L Sabol2, Ned Z Carp2. 1. Department of Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, PA, USA. adwilliams5@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Accreditation Program of Breast Centers (NAPBC) certifies institutions that provide quality breast care. Whereas low socioeconomic status (SES) has a negative impact on patient outcomes, it is unknown whether an institution's patient SES mix is associated with meeting NAPBC standards. METHODS: All institutions submitting at least 100 breast cancer patients to the National Cancer Database (2006-2017) were ranked based on the patients' insurance status, income, and education. The 10% treating the largest proportion of low-SES patients were termed low-SES institutions (LSES). Patient cohorts were created based on the 2018 NAPBC standards. Uni- and multivariate comparisons of patient, tumor, and treatment factors were made to calculate adjusted odds of meeting each standard between low- and non-low-SES institutions. RESULTS: The analysis included 1319 institutions. Both the LSES and non-LSES reached the benchmark rate of 50% lumpectomies (61.2 vs 62.9%; p < 0.001), but the unadjusted and adjusted rates of lumpectomy were lower in LSES. The rate for sentinel lymphadenectomy was lower for LSES (49.2 vs 53.7%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the unadjusted and adjusted rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were lower at LSES. Although the unadjusted rate of adjuvant radiation was higher at LSES, adjusted odds demonstrated that patients treated at LSES were less likely to undergo adjuvant radiation when appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Small but significant differences in achieving multidisciplinary standards for quality breast cancer care exist between LSES and non-LSES and may exacerbate disparities already faced by patients of low SES.
BACKGROUND: The National Accreditation Program of Breast Centers (NAPBC) certifies institutions that provide quality breast care. Whereas low socioeconomic status (SES) has a negative impact on patient outcomes, it is unknown whether an institution's patient SES mix is associated with meeting NAPBC standards. METHODS: All institutions submitting at least 100 breast cancerpatients to the National Cancer Database (2006-2017) were ranked based on the patients' insurance status, income, and education. The 10% treating the largest proportion of low-SES patients were termed low-SES institutions (LSES). Patient cohorts were created based on the 2018 NAPBC standards. Uni- and multivariate comparisons of patient, tumor, and treatment factors were made to calculate adjusted odds of meeting each standard between low- and non-low-SES institutions. RESULTS: The analysis included 1319 institutions. Both the LSES and non-LSES reached the benchmark rate of 50% lumpectomies (61.2 vs 62.9%; p < 0.001), but the unadjusted and adjusted rates of lumpectomy were lower in LSES. The rate for sentinel lymphadenectomy was lower for LSES (49.2 vs 53.7%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the unadjusted and adjusted rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were lower at LSES. Although the unadjusted rate of adjuvant radiation was higher at LSES, adjusted odds demonstrated that patients treated at LSES were less likely to undergo adjuvant radiation when appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Small but significant differences in achieving multidisciplinary standards for quality breast cancer care exist between LSES and non-LSES and may exacerbate disparities already faced by patients of low SES.
Authors: Jeffrey H Silber; Paul R Rosenbaum; Richard N Ross; Joseph G Reiter; Bijan A Niknam; Alexander S Hill; Diana M Bongiorno; Shivani A Shah; Lauren L Hochman; Orit Even-Shoshan; Kevin R Fox Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Joshua E Rosen; Katherine Mallin; Ashley Loomis; Greer Gay; Bryan Palis; Kathleen Thoburn; Donna Gress; Daniel P McKellar; Lawrence N Shulman; Matthew A Facktor; David P Winchester Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Helmneh M Sineshaw; Mia Gaudet; Elizabeth M Ward; W Dana Flanders; Carol Desantis; Chun Chieh Lin; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Elizabeth R Berger; Chihsiung E Wang; Cary S Kaufman; Ted J Williamson; Julio A Ibarra; Karen Pollitt; Richard J Bleicher; James L Connolly; David P Winchester; Katharine A Yao Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Tim E Byers; Holly J Wolf; Katrina R Bauer; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Vivien W Chen; Jack L Finch; John P Fulton; Maria J Schymura; Tiefu Shen; Scott Van Heest; Xiang Yin Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Megan E Miller; Richard J Bleicher; Cary S Kaufman; Scott H Kurtzman; Cecilia Chang; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Karen A Pollitt; James Connolly; David P Winchester; Katharine A Yao Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ann B Nattinger; Erica M Wozniak; Emily L McGinley; Jianing Li; Purushottam Laud; Liliana E Pezzin Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.983