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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2018

01-07-2018 | Breast Oncology

Profiling Surgeon Performance for Breast Cancer Lumpectomy by Composite Measurement of Reoperations, Cosmetic Outcomes, and Patient Preferences

Authors: Annie L. Dunham, MD, Luis D. Ramirez, MPH, Choua A. Vang, BS, Jared H. Linebarger, MD, Jeffrey Landercasper, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patients want information to search for destination of care for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). To inform patients wanting a lumpectomy, we aimed to develop a pilot project that communicated composite quality measure (QM) results using a ‘4-star’ rating system. Two patient-centered QMs were included in the model—reoperation rate (ROR) and cosmetic outcome (COSM).

Methods

A prospective database was reviewed for stage 0–3 patients undergoing initial lumpectomy by three surgeons from 2010 to 2015. Self-reported COSM was assessed by survey. Multivariate analyses were used to test for interactions between surgeon and other variables known to influence RORs and COSMs. Models of surgeon profiling were developed that summed the ROR and COSM performance scores, then reported results using a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) star-type system. Functionality for a patient to ‘weight’ the importance of the ratio of ROR:COSM before profiling was introduced.

Results

The unadjusted ROR for stage 1–3 patients for three surgeons was 9.5, 13.0, and 16.3%, respectively (p = 0.179) [overall rate 10.4% (38/366)]. After risk adjustment, differences between surgeons were observed for RORs, but not COSMs. Overall, patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor COSMs of 55, 30, 11 and 4%, respectively. Composite star scores reflected differences in performance by surgeon, which could increase, or even disappear, dependent on the patient’s weighting of the ROR:COSM ratio.

Conclusion

Composite measures of performance can be developed that allow patients to input their weighted preferences and values into surgeon profiling before they consider a destination of care for BCS.
Literature
1.
Jha AK. Public reporting of surgical outcomes: surgeons, hospitals, or both? JAMA 2017;318:1429–1430.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
4.
Ong WL, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommetl ACM, et al. A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) initiative. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3:677–685.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Fayanju OM, Mayo TL, Spinks TE, et al. Value-based breast cancer care: a multidisciplinary approach for defining patient-centered outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:2385–2390.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. Prime time for shared decision making. JAMA 2017; 317:1309–1310.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Dzau VJ, McClellan MB, McGinnis JM, et al. Vital directions for health and health care: priorities from a National Academy of Medicine Initiative. JAMA 2017; 317:1461–1470.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making: pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:780–781.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Mullangi S, Schleicher S, Feeley TW. Outcome measurement in value-based payments. JAMA Oncology 2017; 3:1019–1020.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Rajaram R, Chung JW, Cohen ME, et al. Association of the 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reform with postoperative patient outcomes in surgical specialties. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 221:748–757.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Dimick J, Birkmeyer NJ, Finks JF, Share DA, English WJ, Carlin AM, Birkmeyer JD. Composite measures for profiling hospitals on bariatric surgery performance. JAMA Surg 2014; 149:10–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD. Composite measures for profiling hospitals on surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 2013; 257:67–72.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
16.
17.
McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA 2012; 307:467–475.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Database, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg 2014;149:1296–1305.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Decker MR, Trentham-Dietz A, Loconte NK, et al. The role of intraoperative pathologic assessment in the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:2788–2794.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
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; 21:3185–3191.CrossRefPubMed
21.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Reexcision Surgery for Breast Cancer: An Analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM database following the SSO-ASTRO “No Ink on Tumor” guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:52–58.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, Sedrakyan A. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in New York State. JAMA Surg 2016; 151:648–655.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Cody HS 3rd, Van Zee KJ. Reexcision—the other breast cancer epidemic. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 568–569.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2017; 265:300–310.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Boughey JC, Keeney GL, Radensky P, Song CP, Habermann EB. Economic implications of widespread expansion of frozen section margin analysis to guide surgical resection in women with breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12:e413–e422.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Abe SE, Hill JS, Han Y, et al. Margin re-excision and local recurrence in invasive breast cancer: a cost analysis using a decision tree model. J Surg Oncol 2015;112:443–448.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Morrow M, Abrahamse P, Hofer TP, et al. Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: addressing overtreatment in surgical management. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:1352–1357.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Bilimoria KY, Barnard C. The new CMS hospital quality star ratings: the stars are not aligned. JAMA 2016; 316:1761–1762.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Schwartz T, Degnim AC, Landercasper J. Should re-excision lumpectomy rates be a quality measure in breast-conserving surgery? Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20:3180–3183.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22:3174–3183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Morrow M, Katz SJ. The challenge of developing quality measures for breast cancer surgery. JAMA 2012; 307:509–510.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979; 5:257–261.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Beadle GF, Silver B, Botnick L, Hellman S, Harris JR. Cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cancer 1984; 54:2911–2918.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Vrieling C, et al. Recommendations for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135:629–637.CrossRefPubMed
38.
De La Cruz L, Blankenship SA, Chatterjee A, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:3247–3258.CrossRef
39.
Smith TJ, Landercasper J, Gundrum JD, De Maiffe BM, Andersen JJ, Johnson JM, et al. Perioperative quality metrics for one step breast cancer surgery: a patient-centered approach. J Surg Oncol 2010;102:34–38.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Landercasper J, Bennie B, Parsons BM, Dietrich LL, Greenberg CC, Wilke LG, Linebarger JH. Fewer reoperations after lumpectomy for breast cancer with neoadjuvant rather than adjuvant chemotherapy: a report from the national cancer database. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24:1507–1515.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:2344–2356.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
43.
44.
Linebarger J, Landercasper J, Ellis RL, et al. Core needle biopsy rate for new cancer diagnosis in an interdisciplinary breast center: evaluation of quality of care 2007–2008. Ann Surg 2012; 255:38–43.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Adegboyega TO, Landercasper J, Linebarger JH, et al. Institutional review of compliance with NCCN guidelines for breast cancer: lessons learned from real-time multidimensional synoptic reporting. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2015; 13:177–183.CrossRef
46.
Landercasper J, Ellis RL, Mathiason MA, et al. A community breast center report card determined by participation in a national breast cancer quality initiative. Breast J 2010; 16:472–480.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Mook J, Klein R, Kobbermann A, et al. Volume of excision and cosmesis with routine cavity shave margins technique. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19:886–891.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance in breast-conserving surgery shows superiority in oncological outcome, long-term cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes: final outcomes of a randomized controlled trial (COBALT). Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43:649–657.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MH. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery—comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43:658–664.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Eck DL, Koonce SL, Goldberg RF, Bagaria S, Gibson T, Bowers SP, McLaughlin SA. Breast surgery outcomes as quality measures according to the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19:3212–3217.CrossRefPubMed
51.
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; 245:665–671.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Carter SA, Lyons GR, Kuerer HM, et al. Operative and oncologic outcomes in 9861 patients with operable breast cancer: single-institution analysis of breast conservation with oncoplastic reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:3190–3198.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Atisha DM, Rushing CN, Samsa GP, et al. A national snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22:361–369.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
56.
57.
Landercasper J, Bailey L, Buras R, et al. The American Society of Breast Surgeons and Quality Payment Programs: ranking, defining, and benchmarking more than 1 million patient quality measure encounters. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):3093–3106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Porter M, Kaplan RS. How to pay for health care. Harv Bus Rev 2016; 94:88–100.PubMed
59.
Porter ME, Teisberg EO. How physicians can change the future of health care. JAMA 2007; 297:1103–1111.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Profiling Surgeon Performance for Breast Cancer Lumpectomy by Composite Measurement of Reoperations, Cosmetic Outcomes, and Patient Preferences
Authors
Annie L. Dunham, MD
Luis D. Ramirez, MPH
Choua A. Vang, BS
Jared H. Linebarger, MD
Jeffrey Landercasper, MD
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6479-5

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 7/2018 Go to the issue

Colorectal Cancer

Adrenal Incidentalomas During Diagnostic Work-up of Colorectal Cancer Patients: What is the Risk of Metastases?

Breast Oncology

Most Breast Cancer Patients with T1-2 Tumors and One to Three Positive Lymph Nodes Do Not Need Postmastectomy Radiotherapy

Gynecologic Oncology

Stage- and Histologic Subtype-Dependent Frequency of Lymph Node Metastases in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Undergoing Systematic Pelvic and Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy

Endocrine Tumors

Exploration of the Exact Prognostic Significance of Lymphatic Metastasis in Jejunoileal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: National Practice Patterns, Outcomes, and Predictors of Survival

Pancreatic Tumors

Vitamin D Supplementation is a Promising Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in Conjunction with Current Chemoradiation Therapy