Does it matter where you go for breast surgery?: attending surgeon's influence on variation in receipt of mastectomy for breast cancer.

Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 10/2010; 48(10):892-9. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ef97df
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Concerns about the use of mastectomy and breast reconstruction for breast cancer have motivated interest in surgeon's influence on the variation in receipt of these procedures.
To evaluate the influence of surgeons on variations in the receipt of mastectomy and breast reconstruction for patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer.
Attending surgeons (n = 419) of a population-based sample of breast cancer patients diagnosed in Detroit and Los Angeles during June 2005 to February 2007 (n = 2290) were surveyed. Respondent surgeons (n = 291) and patients (n = 1780) were linked. Random-effects models examined the amount of variation due to surgeon for surgical treatment. Covariates included patient clinical and demographic factors and surgeon demographics, breast cancer specialization, patient management process measures, and attitudes about treatment.
Surgeons explained a modest amount of the variation in receipt of mastectomy (4%) after controlling for patient clinical and sociodemographic factors but a greater amount for reconstruction (16%). Variation in treatment rates across surgeons for a common patient case was much wider for reconstruction (median, 29%; 5th-95th percentile, 9%-65%) then for mastectomy (median, 18%; 5th-95th percentile, 8% and 35%). Surgeon factors did not explain between-surgeon variation in receipt of treatment. For reconstruction, 1 surgeon factor (tendency to discuss treatment plans with a plastic surgeon prior to surgery) explained a substantial amount of the between-surgeon variation (31%).
Surgeons have largely adopted a consistent approach to the initial surgery options. By contrast, the wider between-surgeon variation in receipt of breast reconstruction suggests more variation in how these decisions are made in clinical practice.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary staging in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer. It is not known whether SLNB rates differ by surgeon expertise. If surgeons with less breast cancer expertise are less likely to offer SLNB to these patients, this practice pattern could lead to unnecessary axillary lymph node dissections and lymphedema. OBJECTIVE To explore potential measures of surgical expertise (including a novel objective specialization measure: percentage of a surgeon's operations performed for breast cancer determined from Medicare claims) on the use of SLNB for invasive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION A population-based prospective cohort study was conducted in California, Florida, and Illinois. Participants included elderly (65-89 years) women identified from Medicare claims as having had incident invasive breast cancer surgery in 2003. Patient, tumor, treatment, and surgeon characteristics were examined. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE Type of axillary surgery performed. RESULTS Of 1703 women who received treatment by 863 surgeons, 56.4% underwent an initial SLNB, 37.2% initial axillary lymph node dissection, and 6.3% no axillary surgery. The median annual surgeon Medicare volume of breast cancer cases was 6.0 (range, 1.5-57.0); the median surgeon percentage of breast cancer cases was 4.5% (range, 0.4%-100.0%). After multivariable adjustment of patient and surgeon factors, women operated on by surgeons with higher volumes and percentages of breast cancer cases had a higher likelihood of undergoing SLNB. Specifically, women were most likely to undergo SLNB if the operation was performed by high-volume surgeons (regardless of percentage) or by lower-volume surgeons with a high percentage of breast cancer cases. In addition, membership in the American Society of Breast Surgeons (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.60) and Society of Surgical Oncology (1.59; 1.09-2.30) were independent predictors of women undergoing an initial SLNB. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients who receive treatment from surgeons with more experience with and focus on breast cancer are significantly more likely to undergo SLNB, highlighting the importance of receiving initial treatment by specialized providers. Factors relating to specialization in a particular area, including our novel surgeon percentage measure, require further investigation as potential indicators of quality of care.
    JAMA surgery. 12/2013; 149(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer do not undergo breast reconstruction.
    JAMA surgery. 08/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major variations in medical practice have been documented internationally. Variations raise questions about the quality, equity, and efficiency of resource allocation and use, and have important implications for health care and health policy. To perform a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on medical practice variations in OECD countries. We searched MEDLINE to find publications on medical practice variations in OECD countries published between 2000 and 2011. We present an overview of the characteristics of published studies as well as the magnitude of variations for select high impact conditions. A total of 836 studies were included. Consistent with the gray literature, there were large variations across regions, hospitals and physician practices for almost every condition and procedure studied. Many studies focused on high-impact conditions, but very few looked at the causes or outcomes of medical practice variations. While there were an overwhelming number of publications on medical practice variations the coverage was broad and not often based on a theoretical construct. Future studies should focus on conditions and procedures that are clinically important, policy relevant, resource intensive, and have high levels of public awareness. Further study of the causes and consequences of variations is important.
    Health Policy 08/2013; · 1.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014