Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Katz SJ, Bondarenko I, Ward KC, et al. Association of Attending Surgeon With Variation in the Receipt of Genetic Testing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):909–916. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2001
To what extent is attending surgeon associated with receipt of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer?
In this population-based study of 7810 women, the attending surgeon explained 17.4% of the variation in testing. If a patient at higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% probability of testing compared with 72.3% if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile.
Attending surgeons have an association with variation in the receipt of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer.
Genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer is common, but little is known about the influence of the surgeon on the variation in testing.
To quantify and explain the association of attending surgeon with rates of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This population-based study identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015, through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries for the state of Georgia, as well as Los Angeles County, California. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Also surveyed were 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The study examined the association of surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and genetic testing data obtained from 4 laboratories.
In total, 5080 women (69.6%) of 7303 who were eligible (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [0.8] years) and 377 surgeons (77.3%) of 488 (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.7] years) responded to the survey. Approximately one-third (34.5% [1350 of 3910] of patients had an elevated risk of mutation carriage, and 27.0% (1056 of 3910) overall had genetic testing. Surgeons had practiced a mean (SE) of 20.9 (0.6) years, and 28.9% (107 of 370) treated more than 50 cases of new breast cancer per year. The odds of a patient receiving genetic testing increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.85-3.31) if she saw a surgeon with an approach 1 SD above that of a surgeon with the mean test rate. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of the surgeon variation was explained by patient volume and surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling. If a patient with higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% (95% CI, 21.9%-31.2%) probability of testing compared with 72.3% (95% CI, 66.7%-77.2%) if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile.
Conclusions and Relevance
In this study, the attending surgeon was associated with the receipt of genetic testing after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variation in surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling may explain a substantial amount of this association.
Create a personal account or sign in to: