Danielle Riley1, Elizabeth A Chrischilles2, Ingrid M Lizarraga3, Mary Charlton2, Brian J Smith4, Charles F Lynch2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, S475, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. danielle-riley@uiowa.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, S475, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA. 4. Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite recommendations from national organizations supporting the use of lymph node assessment (LNA) among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at time of mastectomy, variation in practice patterns across the United States has been observed. However, few studies have evaluated LNA differences and rurality. METHODS: Data from the SEER Patterns of Care studies were used to identify women who underwent mastectomy for newly diagnosed DCIS during 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Weighted multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between rural-urban residence and the use of LNA. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing the use of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of the 504 patients included in the analysis, approximately 81% underwent LNA at time of mastectomy with lower rates of use observed among rural patients (66%) versus urban patients (82%). In multivariate analysis, LNA increased over time (p < 0.0001), and rural patients were less likely to receive LNA compared to urban patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.66]. However, the likelihood of undergoing ALND relative to SLNB was lower among rural compared to urban patients (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.03-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Over time, the use of LNA with mastectomy has increased among DCIS patients. However, significant rural-urban differences in the use and type of LNA persist. The findings of this study highlight the importance of continued research aimed at examining the impact of rurality on the receipt of high-quality cancer care.
PURPOSE: Despite recommendations from national organizations supporting the use of lymph node assessment (LNA) among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at time of mastectomy, variation in practice patterns across the United States has been observed. However, few studies have evaluated LNA differences and rurality. METHODS: Data from the SEER Patterns of Care studies were used to identify women who underwent mastectomy for newly diagnosed DCIS during 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Weighted multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between rural-urban residence and the use of LNA. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing the use of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). RESULTS: Of the 504 patients included in the analysis, approximately 81% underwent LNA at time of mastectomy with lower rates of use observed among rural patients (66%) versus urban patients (82%). In multivariate analysis, LNA increased over time (p < 0.0001), and rural patients were less likely to receive LNA compared to urban patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.66]. However, the likelihood of undergoing ALND relative to SLNB was lower among rural compared to urban patients (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.03-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Over time, the use of LNA with mastectomy has increased among DCIS patients. However, significant rural-urban differences in the use and type of LNA persist. The findings of this study highlight the importance of continued research aimed at examining the impact of rurality on the receipt of high-quality cancer care.
Authors: Ashleigh M Francis; Christine E Haugen; Lynn M Grimes; Jaime R Crow; Min Yi; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Isabelle Bedrosian; Abigail S Caudle; Gildy V Babiera; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Henry M Kuerer; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; J Costantino; W Poller; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; R Margolese; N Dimitrov; M Kavanah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J P Julien; N Bijker; I S Fentiman; J L Peterse; V Delledonne; P Rouanet; A Avril; R Sylvester; F Mignolet; H Bartelink; J A Van Dongen Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-02-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B Fisher; J Dignam; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; E R Fisher; E Mamounas; R Smith; M Begovic; N V Dimitrov; R G Margolese; C G Kardinal; M T Kavanah; L Fehrenbacher; R H Oishi Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-06-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stefan O Emdin; Bengt Granstrand; Anita Ringberg; Kerstin Sandelin; Lars-Gunnar Arnesson; Hans Nordgren; Harald Anderson; Hans Garmo; Lars Holmberg; Arne Wallgren Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Joan Houghton; W D George; Jack Cuzick; Catherine Duggan; Ian S Fentiman; Margaret Spittle Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-12 Impact factor: 79.321