Breast cancer: do specialists make a difference?

The importance of location in determining breast conservation rates

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates differences in the utilization of breast conservation surgery (BCS) between major metropolitan areas in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Surgical and staging information were obtained from the Cancer Surveillance Program for Los Angeles County (LAC), the New York State (NYS) Department of Health Cancer Registry, and the UK National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Program. Demographic data were obtained from the census databases from the US, UK, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and chi-square tests were used to compare rates of BCS across the locations under study.

RESULTS

Breast conservation rates were highest in London (79.3%) compared to New York City (NYC) (69.7%) and LAC (66.5%) (P < .0001). Both in NYS and the UK, the cities differ from the surrounding regions in population density, education levels, agricultural activities, and unemployment. BCS rates tended to increase with population density and education levels, and decrease with increased unemployment and agricultural activity, but there was no impact on BCS rates when adjustments for these variables were included in regression models. BCS rates increase with increasing hospital case volume in LAC and NYC (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

When comparing large metropolitan areas in the US and UK there are significantly different rates of BCS in different locations. These differences reflect differences in population density, socioeconomic status (SES), education levels, hospital volume, and the effects of a nationally funded screening program.

High Hospital Volume Is Associated with Better Outcomes for Breast Cancer Surgery: Analysis of 233,247 Patients

BACKGROUND

The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes needs to be further elucidated for low-risk procedures such as surgical therapy of localized breast cancer. The objective of this investigation was to assess the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 233,247 patients who underwent breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and breast-ablative therapy (BAT) for localized breast cancer were extracted from 13 years (1988-2000) of the Nationwide Inpatient Samples. Hospital volume was classified as low (<30 cases/year), intermediate (> or =30 to <70 cases/year), and high (> or =70 cases/year). Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted association between hospital volume and outcomes.

RESULTS

In risk-adjusted analyses, patients operated on at low-volume hospitals were 3.04 (p = 0.03) times more likely to die after BCT compared with patients operated on at high-volume hospitals. Similarly, low-volume hospitals had a significantly higher likelihood of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.73, p = 0.01 for BCT; OR = 1.44, p < 0.001 for BAT) compared with high-volume hospitals. Compared with low-volume hospitals, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter and nonroutine patient discharge significantly lower for high-volume providers for both BCT and BAT (all p < 0.001). Patients were also significantly less likely to undergo BCT if operated on in a low- or intermediate-volume hospital compared with a high-volume provider (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume hospitals had significantly lower nonroutine patient discharge, postoperative morbidity and mortality, shorter length of hospital stay, and higher likelihood of performing BCT. Referral of patients with localized breast cancer to high-volume hospitals may be justified.

Volume–outcome relationships in breast cancer

A significant effect of hospital case volume on perioperative mortality has been documented for a variety of malignancies that require technically challenging operative procedures and complex perioperative management. The effect of case volume on outcome is less clear for the more common cancers, such as breast and colon cancers, that are less technically challenging and require little in the way of specialized care in the postoperative period. For these cancers perioperative mortality is minimal and one must look at other end points such as long-term survival and functional results. The literature demonstrating improved outcomes in terms of mammographical sensitivity, breast-conservation rates, specimen to tumour volume ratios in breast-conserving surgery, sentinel node biopsy success rates, and 5-year survival is reviewed.

Predicting quality in surgery

Disparities in outcome discussed

Decentralization of breast cancer surgery in the United States

BACKGROUND

Physician volume of at least 15-30 annual breast cancer operations has been associated with higher 5-year survival rates. The authors sought to determine whether surgical volumes for breast cancer in the United States frequently reach this threshold.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of 987 surgeons who operated on 8105 Medicare patients with breast cancer during 1994-1995 in 6 areas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results tumor registry. The 2-year physician volume of breast cancer operations was estimated among Medicare patients (approximating the on-average annual volumes for patients of all ages) and its association was examined with physician characteristics and with 3 measures of surgical care.

RESULTS

The median 2-year Medicare volume for breast cancer surgeons was 6, and 79% of physicians performed < or = 12 operations. Approximately 50% of patients were cared for by physicians who performed < or = 12 operations over 2 years, and 10% of patients were cared for by physicians who performed > or = 30 operations. Surgeon characteristics of age, female gender, general surgery board certification, and academic affiliation were associated with modestly higher volumes of breast cancer surgery. Higher surgeon volumes were associated with higher patient receipt of breast-conserving surgery, testing for hormone receptors, and lymph node dissection during mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians who perform breast cancer surgery perform few annual operations in Medicare patients, and lower volumes are associated with differences in surgical processes of care. Because patients in the Medicare age group comprise almost 50% of all incident breast cancer cases, surgical volumes for patients of all ages also are likely to be low. It is likely that only approximately 10% of patients in the United States are treated by surgeons who performing at least 30 annual operations.