Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2012

01-01-2012 | Epidemiology

Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands

Authors: Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo, Linda de Munck, Otto Visser, Pieter J. Westenend, Thijs van Dalen, Marian B. Menke, Emiel J. Rutgers, Petra H. Peeters

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Surgical margin status after first breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is used as a quality indicator of breast cancer care in the Netherlands. The aim is to describe the variation in surgical margin status between hospitals. 7,345 patients with DCIS or invasive cancer (T1-2,N0-1,M0) diagnosed between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, who underwent BCS as first surgery, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were treated in 96 hospitals. Maximum target values were 30% ‘focally positive’ or ‘more than focally positive’ for DCIS and 10% ‘more than focally positive’ for invasive carcinoma. Results per hospital are presented in funnel plots. For invasive carcinoma, multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for case mix. Overall 28.5% (95% CI: 25.5–31.4%) of DCIS and 9.1% (95% CI: 8.4–9.8%) of invasive carcinoma had positive margins. Variation between hospitals was substantial. 6 and 10 hospitals, respectively, for DCIS and invasive cancer showed percentages above the upper limit of agreement. Case mix correction led to significant different conclusions for 5 hospitals. After case mix correction, 10 hospitals showed significant higher rates, while 7 hospitals showed significant lower rates. High rates were not related to breast cancer patient volume or type of hospital (teaching vs. non-teaching). Higher rates were related to hospitals where the policy is to aim for BCS instead of mastectomy. The overall percentage of positive margins in the Netherlands is within the predefined targets. The variation between hospitals is substantial but can be largely explained by coincidence. Case mix correction leads to relevant shifts.
Literature
1.
go back to reference van Steenbergen LN, van de Poll-Franse LV, Wouters MW, Jansen-Landheer ML, Coebergh JW, Struikmans H et al (2010) Variation in management of early breast cancer in the Netherlands, 2003–2006. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(Suppl 1):S36–S43PubMed van Steenbergen LN, van de Poll-Franse LV, Wouters MW, Jansen-Landheer ML, Coebergh JW, Struikmans H et al (2010) Variation in management of early breast cancer in the Netherlands, 2003–2006. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(Suppl 1):S36–S43PubMed
3.
go back to reference Het resultaat telt 2008 (2009) The Hague: Dutch health care inspectorate Het resultaat telt 2008 (2009) The Hague: Dutch health care inspectorate
4.
go back to reference Gooiker GA, Veerbeek L, van der Geest LG, Stijnen T, Dekker JW, Nortier JW et al (2010) The quality indicator ‘tumour positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery’ does not provide transparent insight into care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 154:A1142PubMed Gooiker GA, Veerbeek L, van der Geest LG, Stijnen T, Dekker JW, Nortier JW et al (2010) The quality indicator ‘tumour positive surgical margin following breast-conserving surgery’ does not provide transparent insight into care. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 154:A1142PubMed
5.
go back to reference Vles WJ (2009) Schone Schijn; Slordige data-interpretatie vloert betrouwbaarheid prestatie-indicator. Medisch Contact 2008(33/34):1354–1356 Vles WJ (2009) Schone Schijn; Slordige data-interpretatie vloert betrouwbaarheid prestatie-indicator. Medisch Contact 2008(33/34):1354–1356
6.
go back to reference TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (2002) 6th edn. UICC, Geneva TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (2002) 6th edn. UICC, Geneva
7.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ (2005) Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Statist Med 24:1185–1202CrossRef Spiegelhalter DJ (2005) Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Statist Med 24:1185–1202CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, Kuerer HM, Babiera GV, Singletary SE et al (2007) Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(4):1458–1471PubMedCrossRef Cabioglu N, Hunt KK, Sahin AA, Kuerer HM, Babiera GV, Singletary SE et al (2007) Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(4):1458–1471PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, Rose A, Mou A, Buchanan M et al (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15(9):2542–2549PubMedCrossRef Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I, Rose A, Mou A, Buchanan M et al (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15(9):2542–2549PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S et al (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197(6):740–746PubMedCrossRef Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S et al (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197(6):740–746PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Luini A, Rososchansky J, Gatti G, Zurrida S, Caldarella P, Viale G et al (2009) The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113(2):397–402PubMedCrossRef Luini A, Rososchansky J, Gatti G, Zurrida S, Caldarella P, Viale G et al (2009) The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113(2):397–402PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dick AW, Sorbero MS, Ahrendt GM, Hayman JA, Gold HT, Schiffhauer L et al (2011)Comparative effectiveness of Ductal carcinoma in situ management and the roles of margins and surgeons. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(2):92–104 Dick AW, Sorbero MS, Ahrendt GM, Hayman JA, Gold HT, Schiffhauer L et al (2011)Comparative effectiveness of Ductal carcinoma in situ management and the roles of margins and surgeons. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(2):92–104
13.
14.
go back to reference Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M (2010) What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 17(2):558–563PubMedCrossRef Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M (2010) What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 17(2):558–563PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME et al (2010) Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 46(18):3219–3232PubMedCrossRef Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME et al (2010) Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 46(18):3219–3232PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von MG, Harris JR (2010) Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an International Expert Panel. Cancer 116(5):1184–1191PubMedCrossRef Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von MG, Harris JR (2010) Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an International Expert Panel. Cancer 116(5):1184–1191PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Zavagno G, Goldin E, Mencarelli R, Capitanio G, Del BP, Marconato R et al (2008) Role of resection margins in patients treated with breast conservation surgery. Cancer 112(9):1923–1931PubMedCrossRef Zavagno G, Goldin E, Mencarelli R, Capitanio G, Del BP, Marconato R et al (2008) Role of resection margins in patients treated with breast conservation surgery. Cancer 112(9):1923–1931PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR (2009) Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 27(10):1615–1620PubMedCrossRef Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M, Kell MR (2009) Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 27(10):1615–1620PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, Biganzoli L, Cserni G, Cutuli B et al (2010) Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 46(13):2344–2356PubMedCrossRef Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, Biganzoli L, Cserni G, Cutuli B et al (2010) Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 46(13):2344–2356PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ (2011) Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(4):357–363PubMedCrossRef Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA, Westenend PJ, Vles WJ (2011) Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(4):357–363PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Virnig BA, Tuttle TM (2011) Random physician effect and comparative effectiveness of treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(2):81–82PubMedCrossRef Virnig BA, Tuttle TM (2011) Random physician effect and comparative effectiveness of treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(2):81–82PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Variation between hospitals in surgical margins after first breast-conserving surgery in the Netherlands
Authors
Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo
Linda de Munck
Otto Visser
Pieter J. Westenend
Thijs van Dalen
Marian B. Menke
Emiel J. Rutgers
Petra H. Peeters
Publication date
01-01-2012
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1809-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2012 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine