Association of Breast Conservation Surgery for Cancer With 90-Day Reoperation Rates in New York State | Breast Cancer | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ferlay  J, Héry  C, Autier  P, Sankaranarayanan  R. Global burden of breast cancer. In: Li  C, ed.  Breast Cancer Epidemiology. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:1-19.
2.
Howlander  N, Noone  A, Krapcho  M, Garshell  J, Miller  D, Altekruse  S.  SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2014.
3.
Kiebert  GM, de Haes  JC, van de Velde  CJ.  The impact of breast-conserving treatment and mastectomy on the quality of life of early-stage breast cancer patients: a review.  J Clin Oncol. 1991;9(6):1059-1070.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Fisher  B, Anderson  S, Bryant  J,  et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1233-1241.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Clarke  M, Collins  R, Darby  S,  et al; Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG).  Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials.  Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087-2106.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Veronesi  U, Cascinelli  N, Mariani  L,  et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer.  N Engl J Med. 2002;347(16):1227-1232.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Irwig  L, Bennetts  A.  Quality of life after breast conservation or mastectomy: a systematic review.  Aust N Z J Surg. 1997;67(11):750-754.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Pleijhuis  RG, Graafland  M, de Vries  J, Bart  J, de Jong  JS, van Dam  GM.  Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2717-2730.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Houssami  N, Macaskill  P, Marinovich  ML, Morrow  M.  The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):717-730.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Mullenix  PS, Cuadrado  DG, Steele  SR,  et al.  Secondary operations are frequently required to complete the surgical phase of therapy in the era of breast conservation and sentinel lymph node biopsy.  Am J Surg. 2004;187(5):643-646.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Aziz  D, Rawlinson  E, Narod  SA,  et al.  The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer.  Breast J. 2006;12(4):331-337.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Landercasper  J, Whitacre  E, Degnim  AC, Al-Hamadani  M.  Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3185-3191.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Heil  J, Breitkreuz  K, Golatta  M,  et al.  Do reexcisions impair aesthetic outcome in breast conservation surgery? exploratory analysis of a prospective cohort study.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(2):541-547.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Kouzminova  NB, Aggarwal  S, Aggarwal  A, Allo  MD, Lin  AY.  Impact of initial surgical margins and residual cancer upon re-excision on outcome of patients with localized breast cancer.  Am J Surg. 2009;198(6):771-780.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Menes  TS, Tartter  PI, Bleiweiss  I, Godbold  JH, Estabrook  A, Smith  SR.  The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(11):881-885.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Osborn  JB, Keeney  GL, Jakub  JW, Degnim  AC, Boughey  JC.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine frozen-section analysis of breast margins compared with reoperation for positive margins.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3204-3209.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
McCahill  LE, Single  RM, Aiello Bowles  EJ,  et al.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.  JAMA. 2012;307(5):467-475.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Waljee  JF, Hu  ES, Newman  LA, Alderman  AK.  Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(5):1297-1303.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Wilke  LG, Czechura  T, Wang  C,  et al.  Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010.  JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1296-1305.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Birkmeyer  JD, Stukel  TA, Siewers  AE, Goodney  PP, Wennberg  DE, Lucas  FL.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2003;349(22):2117-2127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Billingsley  KG, Morris  AM, Dominitz  JA,  et al.  Surgeon and hospital characteristics as predictors of major adverse outcomes following colon cancer surgery: understanding the volume-outcome relationship.  Arch Surg. 2007;142(1):23-31.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Hillner  BE, Smith  TJ, Desch  CE.  Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care.  J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(11):2327-2340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Schwartz  T, Degnim  AC, Landercasper  J.  Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery?  Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3180-3183.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
New York State Department of Health. Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/sparcs/. Revised February 2015. Accessed November 14, 2105.
25.
Elixhauser  A, Steiner  C, Harris  DR, Coffey  RM.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.  Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-27.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
van Walraven  C, Austin  PC, Jennings  A, Quan  H, Forster  AJ.  A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data.  Med Care. 2009;47(6):626-633.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
New York State Office of the Professions. Verification searches. http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm. Updated December 8, 2015. Accessed January 15, 2015.
28.
Jeevan  R, Cromwell  DA, Trivella  M,  et al.  Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics.  BMJ. 2012;345:e4505.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Dragun  AE, Huang  B, Tucker  TC, Spanos  WJ.  Increasing mastectomy rates among all age groups for early stage breast cancer: a 10-year study of surgical choice.  Breast J. 2012;18(4):318-325.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Neuburger  J, Macneill  F, Jeevan  R, van der Meulen  JHP, Cromwell  DA.  Trends in the use of bilateral mastectomy in England from 2002 to 2011: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics.  BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003179.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Tuttle  TM, Habermann  EB, Grund  EH, Morris  TJ, Virnig  BA.  Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment.  J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5203-5209.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Albornoz  CR, Matros  E, Lee  CN,  et al.  Bilateral mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: the role of breast reconstruction.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1518-1526.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Fisher  CS, Martin-Dunlap  T, Ruppel  MB, Gao  F, Atkins  J, Margenthaler  JA.  Fear of recurrence and perceived survival benefit are primary motivators for choosing mastectomy over breast-conservation therapy regardless of age.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3246-3250.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Lovrics  PJ, Cornacchi  SD, Farrokhyar  F,  et al.  Technical factors, surgeon case volume and positive margin rates after breast conservation surgery for early-stage breast cancer.  Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):305-312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Cook  JA, McCulloch  P, Blazeby  JM, Beard  DJ, Marinac-Dabic  D, Sedrakyan  A; IDEAL Group.  IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage.  BMJ. 2013;346:f2820.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Silverstein  MJ, Lagios  MD, Groshen  S,  et al.  The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.  N Engl J Med. 1999;340(19):1455-1461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Moran  MS, Schnitt  SJ, Giuliano  AE,  et al.  Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553-564.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Bradley  CJ, Given  CW, Roberts  C.  Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(7):490-496.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Michalski  TA, Nattinger  AB.  The influence of black race and socioeconomic status on the use of breast-conserving surgery for Medicare beneficiaries.  Cancer. 1997;79(2):314-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
July 2016

Association of Breast Conservation Surgery for Cancer With 90-Day Reoperation Rates in New York State

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Healthcare and Policy Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
  • 2Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
JAMA Surg. 2016;151(7):648-655. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5535
Abstract

Importance  For early-stage breast cancer, breast conservation surgery (BCS) is a conservative option for women and involves removing the tumor with a margin of surrounding breast tissue. If margins are not tumor free, patients undergo additional surgery to avoid local recurrence.

Objectives  To investigate the use of BCS in New York State and to determine rates of reoperation, procedure choice, and the effect of surgeon experience on the odds of a reoperation 90 days after BCS.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A population-based sample of 89 448 women undergoing primary BCS for cancer were selected and examined from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2013, in New York State mandatory reporting databases. All hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in New York State were included. Data were analyzed from December 15, 2014, to November 1, 2015.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Rate of reoperations within 90 days of the initial BCS procedure.

Results  During the study period, 89 448 women 20 years or older (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [13.7] years) underwent primary BCS. In 2013, 1416 women in New York aged 20 to 49 years underwent BCS compared with 3068 women aged 50 to 64 years and 3644 women 65 years or older. These numbers represent a significant decrease from 1960 women younger than 50 years in 2003 who underwent BCS (P < .001 for trend) but little change from the 2899 women aged 50 to 64 years and 3270 women 65 years or older who underwent BCS in 2003. Mean overall rate of 90-day reoperation was 30.9% (27 010 of 87 499 patients) and decreased over time from 39.5% (6630 of 16 805 patients) in 2003 to 2004 to 23.1% (5148 of 22 286 patients) in 2011 to 2013. Rates of reoperation were highest in women aged 20 to 49 years (37.7% [6990 of 18 524]) and lowest in women 65 years or older (26.3% [9656 of 36 691]) (P < .001 for trend). Over time, more patients underwent BCS as a subsequent procedure, from 4237 of 6630 patients (63.9%) in 2003 to 2004 to 4258 of 5148 (82.7%) in 2011 to 2013 (P < .001 for trend). Among the 19 466 women who underwent BCS as a second procedure, 2429 (12.5%) required a third intervention (2.7% of all women included). Significant surgeon-level variation was found in the data; 90-day rates of reoperations by surgeon ranged from 0% to 100%. Low-volume surgeons (<14 cases per year) had an unadjusted rate of 35.2% compared with 29.6% in middle-volume (14-33 cases per year) and 27.5% in high-volume (≥34 cases per year) surgeons. The difference persisted in adjusted analyses (odds ratio for low-volume surgeons, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.19-1.87]; for middle-volume surgeons, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.93-1.56]) compared with high-volume surgeons (used as the reference category).

Conclusions and Relevance  Use of BCS has decreased overall, most steeply in younger women. Nearly 1 in 4 women underwent a reoperation within 90 days of BCS across New York State from 2011 to 2013, compared with 2 in 5 from 2003 to 2004. Rates vary significantly by surgeon, and initial BCS performed by high-volume surgeons was associated with a 33% lower risk for a reoperation.

×