Correlates of Between-Surgeon Variation in Breast Cancer Treatments

Clinical outcome data for symptomatic breast cancer: the Breast Cancer Clinical Outcome Measures (BCCOM) Project

Background:

Data collection for screen-detected breast cancer in the United Kingdom is fully funded, which has led to improvements in clinical practice. However, data on symptomatic cancer are deficient, and the aim of this project was to monitor the current practice.

Methods:

A data set was designed together with surrogate outcome measures to reflect best practice. Data from cancer registries initially required the consent of clinicians, but in the third year anonymised data were available.

Results:

The quality of data improved, but this varied by region and only a third of the cases were validated by clinicians. Regional variations in mastectomy rates were identified, and one-third of patients who underwent conservative surgery for the treatment invasive breast cancer were not recorded as receiving radiotherapy.

Conclusion:

National data are essential to ensure that all patients receive appropriate treatment for breast cancer, but variations still exist in the United Kingdom and further improvement in data capture is required.

Surgeon characteristics and use of breast conservation surgery in women with early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Most women with localized breast cancer have a choice between mastectomy and breast conserving surgery (BCS). Aside from clinical factors, this decision may be associated with surgeon and patient characteristics. We investigated the effect of surgeon characteristics on the BCS rate.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify women >65 years, diagnosed with stages I-II BC, between 1991 and 2002, and used the Physician Unique Identification Number linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain information on surgeons. We investigated the association of patient demographic, tumor, and surgeon-related factors with receipt of BCS, using Generalized Estimating Equations to control for clustering.

RESULTS

Of 56,768 women with breast cancer, 30,006 (53%) underwent BCS, whereas 26,762 (47%) underwent mastectomy. Between 1991 and 2002, the proportion of patients undergoing BCS increased from 35% to 60%. In a multivariate analysis, patients who received BCS were younger, of higher SES, and had more favorable tumor characteristics. They were also more likely to be black and live in metropolitan areas. Women who underwent BCS were more likely to have surgeons who were female (OR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.25-1.55), US-trained (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.22), with a larger patient panel (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.21-1.39), and completed training after 1975 (OR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.08-1.25), than surgeons of patients who underwent mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon characteristics, such as gender, training, year of graduation, and volume, are small but significant independent predictor of BCS. Efforts to differentiate whether these associations reflect patients' preferences, quality of physician training, surgeon attitudes, physician-patient communication, or other effects on decision-making are warranted.

Determinants of breast conservation rates: reasons for mastectomy at a comprehensive cancer center

Bias in referral patterns and variations in multi-disciplinary management may impact breast conservation therapy (BCT) rates between hospitals. Retrospective studies of BCT rates are limited by their inability to differentiate indicated mastectomies versus those chosen by the patient. Our prospective breast cancer data base was queried for patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent surgical therapy at the University of Michigan over a 3-year period. Demographics, stage and histology were recorded along with the reason mastectomy was performed, categorized as "by need" (contraindication to BCT) or "by choice." Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors significantly associated with mastectomy by choice. BCT was associated with tumor size, histology and nodal status, but not older age, either by choice or by need. Of the 34% of patients initially felt to be poor candidates for BCT, it was absolutely contraindicated in 44%, while 56% were thought to have a tumor-to-breast size ratio too large for successful BCT. Of this latter group, 80% underwent neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in an attempt to downstage the primary tumor and perform BCT, which was successful in over half the patients. For the patients initially thought to be good candidates for BCT, only 15% chose to undergo mastectomy, while 5% eventually required mastectomy due to failed attempts to achieve negative margins. Overall, the BCT rate was 63%, however without the use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the BCT rate would have been only 53%. At a tertiary referral center, BCT rates are driven more by contraindications than patient choice, and may be heavily skewed towards mastectomy due to referral patterns. In addition to tumor factors such as stage and histology, BCT rate can be dramatically impacted by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy or genetic counseling. Examining BCT rates alone as a measure of quality, therefore, is not an appropriate standard across institutions serving diverse populations.

The structural landscape of the health care system for breast cancer care: results from the Los Angeles Women's Health Study

The structure of health care has been rapidly evolving in response to financial pressures and demands to improve quality. Little work has documented the structure of care and its impact in the context of breast cancer care. We conducted a survey to characterize Los Angeles physicians caring for breast cancer patients and the structural landscape of the healthcare system in which they practice. Cross-sectional survey of physicians who treated a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients. We surveyed 477 physicians, targeting all Los Angeles County medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons reported by patients participating in the Los Angeles Women's Health Study (77% response rate). Specialty-specific questionnaires were developed. Items were based on the structure and quality of care literature, cognitive interviews with cancer care specialists, and existing physician survey instruments. Breast cancer care providers in Los Angeles are diverse, with one-third non-white and 46% speaking a non-English language. Group practice is most common, (37% single specialty, 16% group-model HMO, 8% multi-specialty group). Minimal teaching involvement predominates. Mean new breast cancer patient volumes are relatively high (8 per month overall; six for surgeons), representing 46% of new cancer patients. Physicians reported high career satisfaction levels (83-92%). Physicians were least satisfied with the amount of time spent with patients (82%). Data from this study represent important building blocks for further analyses to determine the impact of structural characteristics on the quality of care that breast cancer patient's experience.

Racial/ethnic disparities in knowledge about risks and benefits of breast cancer treatment: does it matter where you go?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between provider characteristics and treatment location and racial/ethnic minority patients' knowledge of breast cancer treatment risks and benefits.

DATA SOURCES/DATA COLLECTION

Survey responses and clinical data from breast cancer patients of Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries were merged with surgeon survey responses (N=1,132 patients, 277 surgeons).

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations between patient, surgeon, and treatment setting factors and accurate knowledge of the survival benefit and recurrence risk related to mastectomy and breast conserving surgery with radiation.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Half (51 percent) of respondents had survival knowledge, while close to half (47.6 percent) were uncertain regarding recurrence knowledge. Minority patients and those with lower education were less likely to have adequate survival knowledge and more likely to be uncertain regarding recurrence risk than their counterparts (p<.001). Neither surgeon characteristics nor treatment location attenuated racial/ethnic knowledge disparities. Patient-physician communication was significantly (p<.001) associated with both types of knowledge, but did not influence racial/ethnic differences in knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve patient understanding of the benefits and risks of breast cancer treatments are needed across surgeons and treatment setting, particularly for racial/ethnic minority women with breast cancer.

Diffusion of surgical innovation among patients with kidney cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite their potential benefits to patients with kidney cancer, the adoption of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopy has been gradual and asymmetric. To clarify whether this trend reflects differences in kidney cancer patients or differences in surgeon practice styles, the authors compared the magnitude of surgeon-attributable variance in the use of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with that attributable to patient and tumor characteristics.

METHODS

By using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, the authors identified a cohort of 5483 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent surgery for kidney cancer between 1997 and 2002. Two primary outcomes were defined: 1) the use of partial nephrectomy and (2) the use of laparoscopy among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy. By using multilevel models, surgeon- and patient-level contributions to observed variations in the use of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy were estimated.

RESULTS

Of the 5483 cases identified, 611 (11.1%) underwent partial nephrectomy (43 performed laparoscopically), and 4872 (88.9%) underwent radical nephrectomy (515 performed laparoscopically). After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, tumor size, and surgeon volume, the surgeon-attributable variance was 18.1% for partial nephrectomy and 37.4% for laparoscopy. For both outcomes, the percentage of total variance attributable to surgeon factors was consistently higher than that attributable to patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

For many patients with kidney cancer, the surgery provided depends more on their surgeon's practice style than on the characteristics of the patient and his or her disease. Consequently, dismantling barriers to surgeon adoption of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopy is an important step toward improving the quality of care for patients with early-stage kidney cancer.

Individual physician practice variation in hematopoietic cell transplantation

PURPOSE

Previous studies have evaluated practice variation in hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) among transplant centers and countries. There are no studies investigating individual physician practice variation in HCT.

METHODS

An international Internet-based survey of transplant physicians collected data on medical decisions made by adult and pediatric HCT physicians. Multivariable analyses identified practitioner and transplant center characteristics predictive of medical decision making.

RESULTS

Analysis of 526 assessable respondents showed a wide variation in management approaches to specific clinical scenarios. Pediatric and adult transplant physicians differed significantly in their management strategies for chronic myeloid leukemia, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, and choice of graft source for patients with aplastic anemia. Among adult transplant physicians, there was little agreement on the patient factors favoring reduced intensity conditioning or myeloablative conditioning.

CONCLUSION

These results emphasize the heterogeneity of worldwide transplant practices. Local preferences or biases likely result in similar patients being offered different transplant and treatment procedures. The degree of practice variation also highlights the need for clinical trials to clarify areas of controversy. Where clinical trials are not feasible, data from observational studies may be the best available evidence to guide practice.

Understanding the impact of breast reconstruction on the surgical decision-making process for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction is rarely incorporated into the decision-making process for surgical breast cancer treatment. We examined the importance of knowing about reconstruction to patients' surgical decision-making for breast cancer.

METHODS

We surveyed women aged < or =79 years with breast cancer (N = 1844) who were reported to the Detroit and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries (response rate, 77.4%). The dependent variables were 1) patients' report of having a discussion about breast reconstruction with their general surgeon (yes/no), 2) whether or not this discussion had an impact on their willingness to be treated with a mastectomy (yes/no), and 3) whether the patient received a mastectomy (yes/no). The independent variables included age, race, education, tumor size, tumor behavior, and presence of comorbidities. Chi-square, Student t test, and logistic regression were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Only 33% of patients had a general surgeon discuss breast reconstruction with them during the surgical decision-making process for their cancer. Surgeons were significantly more likely to have this discussion with younger, more educated patients with larger tumors. Knowing about reconstructive options significantly increased patients' willingness to consider a mastectomy (OR, 2.06; P <.01). In addition, this discussion influenced surgical treatment. Patients who discussed reconstruction with their general surgeon were 4 times more likely to receive a mastectomy compared with those who did not (OR, 4.48; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most general surgeons do not discuss reconstruction with their breast cancer patients before surgical treatment. When it occurs, this discussion significantly impacts women's treatment choice, making many more likely to choose mastectomy. This highlights the importance of multidisciplinary care models to facilitate an informed surgical treatment decision-making process.

Surgeon characteristics and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant radiotherapy following breast conservation surgery (BCS) is considered to be an indicator of quality of care for the majority of women with breast cancer, but many women do not receive adjuvant radiotherapy. We investigated the association of surgeon-related factors with receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy after BCS.

METHODS

We used the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify women aged 65 years or older with stage I/II breast cancer who were diagnosed between 1991 and 2002 and underwent BCS. We collected demographic and clinical data from SEER and treatment information from Medicare claims data. The American Medical Association Masterfile was used to obtain information on surgeons' characteristics, including sex, medical school location (United States or elsewhere), and type of degree (MD or Doctorate in Osteopathic Medicine [DO]). The associations of patient (age, race, rural vs urban residence, comorbidities, marital status), tumor (hormone receptor status, grade, stage), and surgeon-related factors with receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations to control for clustering. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 29,760 women in our sample, 22,207 (75%) received radiotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant radiotherapy were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and were more likely to be white, married, from an urban area, and diagnosed in a later year compared with those who did not. They were also more likely to have a surgeon who was female (79% vs 73%), had an MD degree (75% vs 68%), or was US trained (75% vs 70%). The multivariable analysis confirmed the association of radiotherapy with having a surgeon who was female (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06 to 1.27), had an MD degree (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.24 to 1.91), was US trained (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.25), or had more than 15 patients (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon characteristics were associated with patients' receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy after BCS after controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, although the individual effect sizes were small for surgeon sex, location of training, and type of medical degree. More research is warranted to confirm the associations to determine whether they reflect surgeon behavior, patient response, or physician-patient interactions.

Patient Satisfaction With Treatment of Breast Cancer: Does Surgeon Specialization Matter?

Purpose

Experience and practice setting vary greatly among surgeons who treat breast cancer patients. However, less is known about how these factors influence patient satisfaction with their care.

Patients and Methods

We surveyed all ductal carcinoma in situ patients and a 20% random sample of invasive breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2002 reported to the Detroit, MI, and Los Angeles, CA, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Attending surgeons were surveyed, yielding dyad information for 64.6% of patients (n = 1,539) and 69.7% of surgeons (n = 318). Logistic regression was used to examine the associations between surgeon specialization (percentage of practice devoted to breast disease) and hospital cancer program status, with four domains of patient satisfaction: (1) the surgical decision, (2) decision-making process, (3) surgeon-patient relationship, and (4) surgeon-patient communication, adjusting for patient and surgeon demographics and disease stage.

Results

In this sample, 34.5% of patients were treated by surgeons who devoted less than 30% (low volume) of their practice to breast disease, 32.5% by surgeons who devoted 30% to 60% (medium volume) of their practice to breast disease, and 33.0% by surgeons who devoted more than 60% (high volume) of their practice to breast disease. Compared to patients treated by low-volume surgeons, patients treated by higher volume surgeons were more satisfied with the decision-making process (medium volume, odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.67; high volume: OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.80) and with the surgeon-patient relationship (medium volume: OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.76; high volume: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.61). Treatment setting was not associated with patient satisfaction after controlling for other factors.

Conclusion

Surgeon specialization is correlated with patient satisfaction. Examining the processes underlying these associations can inform strategies to improve breast cancer care.

From Policy To Patients And Back: Surgical Treatment Decision Making For Patients With Breast Cancer

Persistent use of mastectomy for breast cancer has motivated concerns about overtreatment by surgeons and lack of patient involvement in decisions. However, recent studies suggest that patients perceive substantial involvement and that some patients prefer more invasive surgery, while other research suggests that surgical treatment choices might be poorly informed. Decision-making quality can be improved by increasing patients' knowledge about treatments' risks and benefits and by optimizing their involvement. The mastectomy story underscores the limitations of utilization measures as quality indicators. Strategies to improve patient outcomes should focus on tools to improve the quality of decision making and innovations in multispecialty practice.

Correlates of referral practices of general surgeons to plastic surgeons for mastectomy reconstruction

BACKGROUND

General surgeons' attitudes toward breast reconstruction may affect referrals to plastic surgeons. The propensity to refer to plastic surgeons prior to surgical treatment decisions for breast cancer varies markedly across general surgeons and is associated with receipt of reconstruction. In this study, the authors used data from a large physician survey to examine factors associated with general surgeons' propensity to refer breast cancer patients to plastic surgeons prior to mastectomy.

METHODS

The authors surveyed all attending general surgeons (N=456 surgeons) from a population-based sample of breast cancer patients who were diagnosed in Detroit and Los Angeles during 2002 (N=1844 patients), with a surgeon response rate of 80%. The dependent variable was surgeon report of the percentage of their mastectomy patients in the past 2 years who they referred to plastic surgeons prior to initial surgery (referral propensity). Referral propensity was collapsed into 3 categories (<25%, 25-75%, and >75%) and regressed on the following covariates using logistic regression: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry; number of years in clinical practice; surgeons' sex; annual breast surgery volume; and hospital setting.

RESULTS

Only 24% of surgeons referred>75% of their patients to plastic surgeons prior to surgery (high referral propensity). High referral propensity was associated independently with surgeons who were women (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; P=.03), high clinical breast surgery volume (OR, 4.1; P<.01), and working in cancer centers (OR, 2.4; P=.01). High-referral surgeons and low-referral surgeons also had different beliefs about women's preferences for reconstruction, with the low-referral surgeons perceiving more access barriers (cost, availability of plastic surgeons) and a lower patient priority for reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of surgeons do not refer breast cancer patients to plastic surgery at the time of surgical decision-making. Surgeons who have a high referral propensity are more likely to be women, to have a high clinical breast volume, and to work in cancer centers. These data support the importance of comanagement through multidisciplinary care models. Women need more opportunities to discuss reconstructive options to make informed surgical treatment decisions about their breast cancer.

Factors associated with patient involvement in surgical treatment decision making for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors associated with women's reported level of involvement in breast cancer surgical treatment decision making, and the factors associated with the match between actual and preferred involvement in this decision.

METHODS

Survey data from breast cancer patients in Detroit and Los Angeles was merged with surgeon data for an analytic dataset of 1101 patients and 277 surgeons. Decisional involvement and the match between actual and preferred amount of involvement were analyzed as three-level dependent variables using multinomial logistic regression controlling for clustering within surgeons. Independent variables included patient demographic and clinical factors, surgeon demographic and practice factors, cancer program designation, and two measures of patient-surgeon communication.

RESULTS

We found variation in women's actual decisional involvement and match between actual and preferred involvement. Women with a surgeon-based or patient-based (versus shared) decision were significantly (p < or = 0.05) younger. Women who had too little decisional involvement (versus the right amount) were younger, while women with too much involvement had less education. Patient-surgeon communication variables were significantly associated with both involvement and match, and higher surgeon volume as associated with too little involvement.

CONCLUSION

Patient factors and patient-surgeon communication influence women's perception of their involvement in breast cancer surgical treatment decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Decision tools are needed across surgeons and practice settings to elicit patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decisions for breast cancer.

Patterns and Correlates of Patient Referral to Surgeons for Treatment of Breast Cancer

Purpose

Characteristics of surgeons and their hospitals have been associated with cancer treatments and outcomes. However, little is known about factors that are associated with referral pathways.

Methods

We analyzed tumor registry and survey data from women with breast cancer diagnosed in 2002 and reported to the Detroit and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (n = 1,844; response rate, 77.4%) and their attending surgeons (n = 365; response rate 80.0%).

Results

About half of the patients (54.3%) reported that they were referred to the surgeon by another provider or health plan; 20.3% reported that they selected the surgeon; and 21.9% reported that they both were referred and were involved in selecting the surgeon. Patients who selected the surgeon based on reputation were more likely to have received treatment from a high-volume surgeon (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5 to 3.4) and more likely to have been treated in an American College of Surgeons–approved cancer program or a National Cancer Institute (NCI) –designated cancer center (adjusted OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.1; adjusted OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.9 to 6.2, respectively). Patients who were referred to the surgeon were less likely to be treated in an NCI-designated cancer center (adjusted OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.9).

Conclusion

Women with breast cancer who actively participate in the surgeon selection process are more likely to be treated by more experienced surgeons and in hospitals with cancer programs. Patients should be aware that provider or health plan–based referral may not connect them with the most experienced surgeon or comprehensive practice setting in their community.