Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2012

01-10-2012 | Breast Oncology

Breast Surgery Outcomes as Quality Measures According to the NSQIP Database

Authors: Dustin L. Eck, MD, Stephanie L. Koonce, MD, Ross F. Goldberg, MD, Sanjay Bagaria, MD, Tammeza Gibson, PA, Steven P. Bowers, MD, Sarah A. McLaughlin, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is a risk-adjusted database designed to benchmark quality initiatives. NSQIP captures uniform morbidity variables for all operations and calculates expected morbidity probabilities. Given the frequent need for reoperation following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, we hypothesized that NSQIP may inaccurately reflect surgical morbidity after breast cancer operations.

Methods

Using the 2008 NSQIP database, we identified 24,447 breast surgery patients. We calculated the observed versus expected (O/E) morbidity ratios, compared them to other general surgery procedures, and analyzed the O/E morbidity ratios among benign and malignant breast diagnoses.

Results

The NSQIP database shows that breast surgery has an O/E morbidity ratio of 3.11, which is higher than other general surgery procedures. Additionally, breast operations for malignancy have higher O/E morbidity ratios (3.22) than those performed for benign disease (2.59). Analysis of malignant patients by CPT code revealed that BCS patients had an O/E morbidity ratio of 7.75 and attributed 89 % of morbidity to reoperation, whereas mastectomy patients had an O/E morbidity ratio of only 1.7. Elimination of the reoperation variable from morbidity calculations in breast surgery reduces the O/E morbidity ratio to less than expected in all breast procedures.

Discussion

Breast surgery has a higher O/E morbidity ratio than other general surgery procedures. Reoperations are expected in BCS for positive margins and in mastectomy for completion ALND. Breast surgeons should advocate for benchmarking by surgical site-specific metrics, because current NSQIP criteria may negatively affect the quality assessment of high-volume breast centers.
Literature
1.
Sigston E, de Mones E, Babin E, Hans S, Hartl DM, Clement P, et al. Early-stage glottic cancer: oncological results and margins in laser cordectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:147–52.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Ansarin M, Santoro L, Cattaneo A, Massaro M, Calabrese L, Giugliano G, et al. Laser surgery for early glottic cancer: impact of margin status on local control and organ preservation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(4):385–290.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Daley J, Forbes MG, Young GJ, Charns MP, Gibbs JO, Hur K, et al. Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: site visit assessment of process and structure. National VA Surgical Risk Study. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(4):341–51.PubMed
4.
Gibbs J, Clark K, Khuri S, Henderson W, Hur K, Daley J. Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: chart review of process of care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13(3):187–96.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Schnitt SJ. Risk factors for local recurrence in patients with invasive breast cancer and negative surgical margins of excision. Where are we and where are we going? Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120(4):485–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Leong C, Boyages J, Jayasinghe UW, Bilous M, Ung O, Chua B, et al. Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conservation therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(9):1823–32.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER, 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):1233–41.PubMedCrossRef
8.
McKinney CD, Frierson HF Jr, Fechner RE, Wilhelm MC, Edge SB. Pathologic findings in nonpalpable invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(1):33–6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Wilhelm MC, Edge SB, Cole DD, deParedes E, Frierson HF Jr. Nonpalpable invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1991;213(6):600–3; discussion 3–5.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, Hermann G, de Csepel J, Estabrook A, et al. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002;235(2):246–51.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Allegra CJ, Aberle DR, Ganschow P, Hahn SM, Lee CN, Millon-Underwood S, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ, September 22-24, 2009. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):161–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265(3):391–5.CrossRef
13.
Morrow M, White J, Moughan J, Owen J, Pajack T, Sylvester J, et al. Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(8):2254–62.PubMed
14.
Parviz M, Cassel JB, Kaplan BJ, Karp SE, Neifeld JP, Penberthy LT, et al. Breast conservation therapy rates are no different in medically indigent versus insured patients with early stage breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2003;84(2):57–62.PubMedCrossRef
15.
McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, Sheehey-Jones J, Ratliff J, Majercik D, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144(5):455–62; discussion 62–3.PubMedCrossRef
16.
El-Tamer MB, Ward BM, Schifftner T, Neumayer L, Khuri S, Henderson W. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg. 2007;245(5):665–71.PubMedCrossRef
17.
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):1297–303.PubMedCrossRef
18.
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, Feigelson HS, James TA, Barney T, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Cellini C, Hollenbeck ST, Christos P, Martins D, Carson J, Kemper S, et al. Factors associated with residual breast cancer after re-excision for close or positive margins. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(10):915–20.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, Goldberg S, Ceilley E, Powell S. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2005;241(4):629–39.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Silverstein MJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: controversial issues. Oncologist. 1998;3(2):94–103.PubMed
22.
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):881–5.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):558–63.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):608–13.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Metadata
Title
Breast Surgery Outcomes as Quality Measures According to the NSQIP Database
Authors
Dustin L. Eck, MD
Stephanie L. Koonce, MD
Ross F. Goldberg, MD
Sanjay Bagaria, MD
Tammeza Gibson, PA
Steven P. Bowers, MD
Sarah A. McLaughlin, MD
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2012
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2529-6

Other articles of this Issue 10/2012

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2012 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Triangle Resection with Crescent Mastopexy: An Oncoplastic Breast Surgical Technique for Managing Inferior Pole Lesions

Breast Oncology

The Role for Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients who Present with Node-Positive Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Intraoperative Imprint Cytology and Frozen Section Pathology for Margin Assessment in Breast Conservation Surgery: A Systematic Review

Breast Oncology

ABO Blood Type/Rh Factor and the Incidence and Outcomes for Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Patient Navigation and the Quality of Breast Cancer Care: An Analysis of the Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators

Breast Oncology

Surgical Delay of the Nipple–Areolar Complex: A Powerful Technique to Maximize Nipple Viability Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy