Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013

01-08-2013 | Epidemiology

Hospital and surgeon caseload are associated with risk of re-operation following breast-conserving surgery

Authors: Marianna de Camargo Cancela, Harry Comber, Linda Sharp

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is increasingly used for breast cancer treatment. One of the disadvantages of BCS is the risk of re-operation, associated with additional costs to the woman, health service and society. Hospital and surgeon caseload have been associated with better outcomes in breast cancer. Whether these are related to re-operation rates is not clear. In women who underwent BCS initially, we aimed to quantify re-operation rates and identify the factors related to the risk of undergoing subsequent (i) re-operation and (ii) total mastectomy (TM). From the National Cancer Registry Ireland, we identified women diagnosed with a first invasive breast cancer during 2002–2008, and who initially had BCS. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to identify factors significantly associated with (i) re-operation (vs no re-operation) or (ii) re-operation by TM (vs re-operation by BCS). 16,551 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 8,318 underwent initial BCS. Of these, 17 % had one or more subsequent re-operations and, of these, 62 % had TM. Surgeon and hospital volume significantly predicted subsequent re-operation after adjustment for socio-demographic and clinical variables. Women having surgery in lower-volume hospitals by low-volume surgeons significantly increased the risk of re-operation [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.56; 95 % CI 1.33–1.83] compared to those operated in higher-volume hospitals by a higher-volume surgeon. Risk of subsequent TM was increased by 22 % (95 % CI 1.10–1.35) and 21 % (95 % CI 1.09–1.33), if women were operated by a lower or intermediate-volume surgeon. The fact that factors related to healthcare organisation/service provision are associated with re-operations suggests that it may be possible to reduce the overall re-operation rate. The high frequency of subsequent TM raises questions about strategies for selecting women for initial BCS. Our results may inform the development of information strategies to help ensure that women are aware of risks of re-operation following BCS and hence, make appropriate treatment choices.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Litiere S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS et al (2012) Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 13:412–419PubMedCrossRef Litiere S, Werutsky G, Fentiman IS et al (2012) Breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy for stage I-II breast cancer: 20 year follow-up of the EORTC 10801 phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 13:412–419PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jatoi I, Proschan MA (2005) Randomized trials of breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy for primary breast cancer: a pooled analysis of updated results. Am J Clin Oncol 28:289–294PubMedCrossRef Jatoi I, Proschan MA (2005) Randomized trials of breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy for primary breast cancer: a pooled analysis of updated results. Am J Clin Oncol 28:289–294PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Barlow WE, Taplin SH, Yoshida CK et al (2001) Cost comparison of mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:447–455PubMedCrossRef Barlow WE, Taplin SH, Yoshida CK et al (2001) Cost comparison of mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:447–455PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Engel J, Kerr J, Schlesinger-Raab A et al (2004) Quality of life following breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: results of a 5-year prospective study. Breast J 10:223–231PubMedCrossRef Engel J, Kerr J, Schlesinger-Raab A et al (2004) Quality of life following breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: results of a 5-year prospective study. Breast J 10:223–231PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H et al (2008) Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134:1311–1318PubMedCrossRef Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H et al (2008) Quality of life over 5 years in women with breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy: a population-based study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134:1311–1318PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A et al (2005) Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res 40:745–767PubMedCrossRef Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A et al (2005) Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res 40:745–767PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ (2012) Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer–bigger is not better. N Engl J Med 367:79–82PubMedCrossRef Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ (2012) Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer–bigger is not better. N Engl J Med 367:79–82PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Xue DQ, Qian C, Yang L et al (2012) Risk factors for surgical site infections after breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:375–381PubMedCrossRef Xue DQ, Qian C, Yang L et al (2012) Risk factors for surgical site infections after breast surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:375–381PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Theodore L (2008) Reexcisions in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: can they be avoided? Ann Surg Oncol 15:945–946 author reply 947-8PubMedCrossRef Theodore L (2008) Reexcisions in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer: can they be avoided? Ann Surg Oncol 15:945–946 author reply 947-8PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U et al (2010) Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 46:2344–2356PubMedCrossRef Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U et al (2010) Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 46:2344–2356PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M et al (2012) Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 345:e4505PubMedCrossRef Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M et al (2012) Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 345:e4505PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA et al (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 37:357–363PubMedCrossRef Talsma AK, Reedijk AM, Damhuis RA et al (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 37:357–363PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Saunders CM et al (2005) Subsequent surgery after initial breast conserving surgery: a population based study. ANZ J Surg 75:260–264PubMedCrossRef Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Saunders CM et al (2005) Subsequent surgery after initial breast conserving surgery: a population based study. ANZ J Surg 75:260–264PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Peltoniemi P, Peltola M, Hakulinen T et al (2011) The effect of hospital volume on the outcome of breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1684–1690PubMedCrossRef Peltoniemi P, Peltola M, Hakulinen T et al (2011) The effect of hospital volume on the outcome of breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1684–1690PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chen CS, Liu TC, Lin HC et al (2008) Does high surgeon and hospital surgical volume raise the five-year survival rate for breast cancer? A population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:349–356PubMedCrossRef Chen CS, Liu TC, Lin HC et al (2008) Does high surgeon and hospital surgical volume raise the five-year survival rate for breast cancer? A population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:349–356PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Anonymous (2012) National Cancer Registry Ireland Website Anonymous (2012) National Cancer Registry Ireland Website
19.
go back to reference National Cancer Registry Ireland (2012) Data Quality and Completeness at the Irish National Cancer Registry National Cancer Registry Ireland (2012) Data Quality and Completeness at the Irish National Cancer Registry
20.
go back to reference Kelly A, Teljeur C (2007) The national deprivation index for health & health services research. Small Area Health Research Unit Technical Report. Small Area Health Research Unit, Trinity College, Dublin Kelly A, Teljeur C (2007) The national deprivation index for health & health services research. Small Area Health Research Unit Technical Report. Small Area Health Research Unit, Trinity College, Dublin
21.
go back to reference Zou G (2004) A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159:702–706PubMedCrossRef Zou G (2004) A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159:702–706PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA et al (2006) The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 12:331–337PubMedCrossRef Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA et al (2006) The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 12:331–337PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K et al (2009) Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:32–37PubMedCrossRef Bani MR, Lux MP, Heusinger K et al (2009) Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:32–37PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Rath MG, Heil J, Domschke C et al (2012) Predictors of resectability in breast-conserving therapy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:1023–1031PubMedCrossRef Rath MG, Heil J, Domschke C et al (2012) Predictors of resectability in breast-conserving therapy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:1023–1031PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Jung W, Kang E, Kim SM et al (2012) Factors associated with re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 15:412–419PubMedCrossRef Jung W, Kang E, Kim SM et al (2012) Factors associated with re-excision after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 15:412–419PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Eck DL, Koonce SL, Goldberg RF et al (2012) Breast surgery outcomes as quality measures according to the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol 19:3212–3217PubMedCrossRef Eck DL, Koonce SL, Goldberg RF et al (2012) Breast surgery outcomes as quality measures according to the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol 19:3212–3217PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ et al (2012) Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 307:467–475PubMedCrossRef McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ et al (2012) Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 307:467–475PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1297–1303PubMedCrossRef Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15:1297–1303PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I et al (2000) Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg 179:81–85PubMedCrossRef Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I et al (2000) Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg 179:81–85PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Meier-Meitinger M, Rauh C, Adamietz B et al (2012) Accuracy of radiological tumour size assessment and the risk for re-excision in a cohort of primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:44–51PubMedCrossRef Meier-Meitinger M, Rauh C, Adamietz B et al (2012) Accuracy of radiological tumour size assessment and the risk for re-excision in a cohort of primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 38:44–51PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Moorthy K, Asopa V, Wiggins E et al (2004) Is the reexcision rate higher if breast conservation surgery is performed by surgical trainees? Am J Surg 188:45–48PubMedCrossRef Moorthy K, Asopa V, Wiggins E et al (2004) Is the reexcision rate higher if breast conservation surgery is performed by surgical trainees? Am J Surg 188:45–48PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Ramanah R, Pivot X, Sautiere JL et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision for positive or close margins in breast-conservation therapy for pT1 tumors. Am J Surg 195:770–774PubMedCrossRef Ramanah R, Pivot X, Sautiere JL et al (2008) Predictors of re-excision for positive or close margins in breast-conservation therapy for pT1 tumors. Am J Surg 195:770–774PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Mullenix PS, Cuadrado DG, Steele SR et al (2004) 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 187:643–646PubMedCrossRef Mullenix PS, Cuadrado DG, Steele SR et al (2004) 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 187:643–646PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al (2009) Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19:2342–2348PubMedCrossRef Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al (2009) Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19:2342–2348PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Sheppard AJ et al (2012) Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50–69. Eur J Cancer Prev 21:499–506PubMedCrossRef Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, Sheppard AJ et al (2012) Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50–69. Eur J Cancer Prev 21:499–506PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Olsson A, Borgquist S, Butt S et al (2012) Tumour-related factors and prognosis in breast cancer detected by screening. Br J Surg 99:78–87PubMedCrossRef Olsson A, Borgquist S, Butt S et al (2012) Tumour-related factors and prognosis in breast cancer detected by screening. Br J Surg 99:78–87PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Gentil J, Dabakuyo TS, Ouedraogo S et al (2012) For patients with breast cancer, geographic and social disparities are independent determinants of access to specialized surgeons. A eleven-year population-based multilevel analysis. BMC Cancer 12:35. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-12-351 CrossRef Gentil J, Dabakuyo TS, Ouedraogo S et al (2012) For patients with breast cancer, geographic and social disparities are independent determinants of access to specialized surgeons. A eleven-year population-based multilevel analysis. BMC Cancer 12:35. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2407-12-351 CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR (2002) Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137:511–520PubMedCrossRef Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR (2002) Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137:511–520PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Houssami N, Sainsbury R (2006) Breast cancer: multidisciplinary care and clinical outcomes. Eur J Cancer 42:2480–2491PubMedCrossRef Houssami N, Sainsbury R (2006) Breast cancer: multidisciplinary care and clinical outcomes. Eur J Cancer 42:2480–2491PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Stefoski Mikeljevic J, Haward RA, Johnston C et al (2003) Surgeon workload and survival from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 89:487–491PubMedCrossRef Stefoski Mikeljevic J, Haward RA, Johnston C et al (2003) Surgeon workload and survival from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 89:487–491PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Guller U, Safford S, Pietrobon R et al (2005) High hospital volume is associated with better outcomes for breast cancer surgery: analysis of 233, 247 patients. World J Surg 29:994–999 discussion 999–1000PubMedCrossRef Guller U, Safford S, Pietrobon R et al (2005) High hospital volume is associated with better outcomes for breast cancer surgery: analysis of 233, 247 patients. World J Surg 29:994–999 discussion 999–1000PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H et al (2001) The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 91:1231–1237PubMedCrossRef Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H et al (2001) The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: the University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 91:1231–1237PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML 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 46:3219–3232PubMedCrossRef Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML 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 46:3219–3232PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ et al (2010) What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 17:558–563PubMedCrossRef Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ et al (2010) What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 17:558–563PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) (2007) National Quality Assurance Standards for Symptomatic Breast Disease Services, Dublin Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) (2007) National Quality Assurance Standards for Symptomatic Breast Disease Services, Dublin
46.
go back to reference Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I et al (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15:2542–2549PubMedCrossRef Kurniawan ED, Wong MH, Windle I et al (2008) Predictors of surgical margin status in breast-conserving surgery within a breast screening program. Ann Surg Oncol 15:2542–2549PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F et al (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197:740–746PubMedCrossRef Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F et al (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197:740–746PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG et al (2012) Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134:1115–1123PubMedCrossRef Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG et al (2012) Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134:1115–1123PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Hospital and surgeon caseload are associated with risk of re-operation following breast-conserving surgery
Authors
Marianna de Camargo Cancela
Harry Comber
Linda Sharp
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2652-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013 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