Importance: Rates of lumpectomy for breast cancer management in the United States previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options, such as mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Objective: To evaluate longitudinal trends in the rates of lumpectomy and mastectomy, including unilateral mastectomy vs CPM rates, and to determine characteristics associated with current surgical practice using 3 national data sets. Design and Setting: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and National Cancer Database (NCDB) were examined to evaluate trends in lumpectomy and mastectomy rates from 2005 through 2017. Mastectomy rates were also evaluated with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed on the NCDB data set to identify predictors of lumpectomy and CPM. Results: A study sample of 3 467 645 female surgical breast cancer patients was analyzed. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010 and 2013, with a significant increase thereafter. Conversely, in comparison with lumpectomy rates, overall mastectomy rates declined significantly starting in 2013. Cochran-Armitage trend tests demonstrated an annual decrease in lumpectomy rates of 1.31% (95% CI, 1.30%-1.32%), 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.12%), and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.16%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively, from 2005 to 2013 (P < .001, P = .01, and P < .001, respectively). From 2013 to 2017, the annual increase in lumpectomy rates was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.95%-0.98%), 1.60% (95% CI, 1.59%-1.62%), and 1.66% (95% CI, 1.65%-1.67%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively (all P < .001). Comparisons of specific mastectomy types showed that unilateral mastectomy and CPM rates stabilized after 2013, with unilateral mastectomy rates remaining higher than CPM rates throughout the entire time period. Conclusions: This observational longitudinal analysis indicated a trend reversal with an increase in lumpectomy rates since 2013 and an associated decline in mastectomies. The steady increase in CPM rates from 2005 to 2013 has since stabilized. The reasons for the recent reversal in trends are likely multifactorial. Further qualitative and quantitative research is required to understand the factors driving these recent practice changes and their associations with patient-reported outcomes.
Importance: Rates of lumpectomy for breast cancer management in the United States previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options, such as mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Objective: To evaluate longitudinal trends in the rates of lumpectomy and mastectomy, including unilateral mastectomy vs CPM rates, and to determine characteristics associated with current surgical practice using 3 national data sets. Design and Setting: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and National Cancer Database (NCDB) were examined to evaluate trends in lumpectomy and mastectomy rates from 2005 through 2017. Mastectomy rates were also evaluated with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed on the NCDB data set to identify predictors of lumpectomy and CPM. Results: A study sample of 3 467 645 female surgical breast cancer patients was analyzed. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010 and 2013, with a significant increase thereafter. Conversely, in comparison with lumpectomy rates, overall mastectomy rates declined significantly starting in 2013. Cochran-Armitage trend tests demonstrated an annual decrease in lumpectomy rates of 1.31% (95% CI, 1.30%-1.32%), 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.12%), and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.16%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively, from 2005 to 2013 (P < .001, P = .01, and P < .001, respectively). From 2013 to 2017, the annual increase in lumpectomy rates was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.95%-0.98%), 1.60% (95% CI, 1.59%-1.62%), and 1.66% (95% CI, 1.65%-1.67%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively (all P < .001). Comparisons of specific mastectomy types showed that unilateral mastectomy and CPM rates stabilized after 2013, with unilateral mastectomy rates remaining higher than CPM rates throughout the entire time period. Conclusions: This observational longitudinal analysis indicated a trend reversal with an increase in lumpectomy rates since 2013 and an associated decline in mastectomies. The steady increase in CPM rates from 2005 to 2013 has since stabilized. The reasons for the recent reversal in trends are likely multifactorial. Further qualitative and quantitative research is required to understand the factors driving these recent practice changes and their associations with patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Laura Grimmer; Erik Liederbach; Jose Velasco; Catherine Pesce; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Katharine Yao Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Reshma Jagsi; Monica Morrow; Nancy K Janz; Ann Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Clara N Lee; Yuchiao Chang; Nesochi Adimorah; Jeff K Belkora; Beverly Moy; Ann H Partridge; David W Ollila; Karen R Sepucha Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Evan Matros; Clara N Lee; Clifford A Hudis; Andrea L Pusic; Elena Elkin; Peter B Bach; Peter G Cordeiro; Monica Morrow Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Meghana G Shamsunder; Hina Panchal; Melissa Pilewskie; Clara Lee; Shantanu N Razdan; Evan Matros Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.532
Authors: Amanda K Arrington; Stephanie L Jarosek; Beth A Virnig; Elizabeth B Habermann; Todd M Tuttle Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kandace P McGuire; Alfredo A Santillan; Paramjeet Kaur; Tammi Meade; Jateen Parbhoo; Morgan Mathias; Corinne Shamehdi; Michelle Davis; Daniel Ramos; Charles E Cox Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Andrea M Covelli; Nancy N Baxter; Margaret I Fitch; David R McCready; Frances C Wright Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 5.344