Improving quality of breast cancer surgery through development of a national breast cancer surgical outcomes (BRCASO) research database

BACKGROUND

Common measures of surgical quality are 30-day morbidity and mortality, which poorly describe breast cancer surgical quality with extremely low morbidity and mortality rates. Several national quality programs have collected additional surgical quality measures; however, program participation is voluntary and results may not be generalizable to all surgeons. We developed the Breast Cancer Surgical Outcomes (BRCASO) database to capture meaningful breast cancer surgical quality measures among a non-voluntary sample, and study variation in these measures across providers, facilities, and health plans. This paper describes our study protocol, data collection methods, and summarizes the strengths and limitations of these data.

METHODS

We included 4524 women ≥18 years diagnosed with breast cancer between 2003-2008. All women with initial breast cancer surgery performed by a surgeon employed at the University of Vermont or three Cancer Research Network (CRN) health plans were eligible for inclusion. From the CRN institutions, we collected electronic administrative data including tumor registry information, Current Procedure Terminology codes for breast cancer surgeries, surgeons, surgical facilities, and patient demographics. We supplemented electronic data with medical record abstraction to collect additional pathology and surgery detail. All data were manually abstracted at the University of Vermont.

RESULTS

The CRN institutions pre-filled 30% (22 out of 72) of elements using electronic data. The remaining elements, including detailed pathology margin status and breast and lymph node surgeries, required chart abstraction. The mean age was 61 years (range 20-98 years); 70% of women were diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma, 20% with ductal carcinoma in situ, and 10% with invasive lobular carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The BRCASO database is one of the largest, multi-site research resources of meaningful breast cancer surgical quality data in the United States. Assembling data from electronic administrative databases and manual chart review balanced efficiency with high-quality, unbiased data collection. Using the BRCASO database, we will evaluate surgical quality measures including mastectomy rates, positive margin rates, and partial mastectomy re-excision rates among a diverse, non-voluntary population of patients, providers, and facilities.

Local recurrence after partial mastectomy: relation to initial surgical margins

BACKGROUND

Local recurrence (LR) after partial mastectomy (PM) has been associated with inadequate surgical margins. We assessed LR association with initial margins after PM in patients receiving postoperative radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS

Initial margins, re-excision status, and ipsilateral LR were identified for all patients having initial PM from 2003 to 2008.

RESULTS

Seven hundred twelve patients underwent PM as their final procedure, and 598 (84.0%) had adjuvant RT. Initial margins were positive or <1-mm margins in 166 patients (27.8%). Re-excision was performed for all positive and 20.2% of patients with margins <1 mm. We observed 10 LRs (1.7%) at the 3.4-year mean follow-up. For patients with initial margins <1 mm, the LR rate was 4.2% (7/167) and just .7% for margins ≥1 mm (P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

We report lower LR rates than traditionally reported. The surgical practice of re-excision to achieve margins of 1 to 5 mm needs closer scrutiny because it may have no impact on LR.

Quality assessment of neoadjuvant therapy use in breast conservation: barriers to implementation

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for operable breast cancer can increase the options for conservative surgery in patients with breast cancer. We performed an analysis of a breast cancer outcomes database as a quality assessment of neoadjuvant therapy use in relation to breast conservative rate (BCR). Data were reviewed from a breast cancer database established to monitor outcomes of breast cancer surgery at a tertiary care breast cancer clinic. The frequency of NST-use was correlated to tumor size and BCR. Cause-specific factors for omitting NST in patients undergoing mastectomy for tumors 3 cm or greater were determined. NST was employed in 29 of 241 (12%) cases of invasive breast carcinoma treated surgically from 2003 to 2005. Although a significant decrease in BCR occurred in tumors >3 cm, NST was not frequently employed until tumors reached >5 cm. Defined contraindications to breast conservation (65%) and patient choice for mastectomy (30%) were the two most common reasons for omitting NST in tumors > or = 3 cm. Despite the initial appearance of NST under-utilization in tumors measuring between 3-5 cm, appropriate exclusion of patients not suitable for breast conservation and patient choice for mastectomy both emerged as leading factors for the omission of NST in this group. Use of NST is an important quality metric in optimizing breast conservation. Patient education and greater understanding of patient-related barriers to NST may help improve BCR.

Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons

OBJECTIVES

To identify and quantify surgical outcomes as possible quality measures of initial breast cancer surgery and to assess variation among surgeons.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis of concurrently collected outcome measures.

SETTING

University hospital with a designated breast cancer center.

PATIENTS

Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing their initial cancer surgery from April 1, 2003, to March 30, 2008.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Eight measures were identified: (1) total mastectomy rate; (2) close (<1 mm) and positive margin rate following initial partial mastectomy; (3) number of operations required in breast conservation; (4) number of nodes obtained from sentinel lymph node biopsy; (5) number of nodes from axillary dissection; (6) proportion of patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy undergoing axillary dissection; (7) use of intraoperative lymph node assessment; and (8) time from diagnosis to surgery.

RESULTS

Nine hundred ten operations (218 for ductal carcinoma in situ, 692 for invasive breast cancer) were performed by 6 surgeons. Variation existed among surgeons in the combined close and positive margin rate, number of nodes obtained from sentinel lymph node biopsy, and use of intraoperative lymph node assessment. No significant variation was seen for the overall mastectomy rate, mean number of operations, positive margin rate alone, and number of lymph nodes from axillary dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality indicators for breast cancer surgery can be identified and readily monitored. Outcome variation exists at a high-volume breast center. Further study into the causes and effects of this variation on short- and long-term patient outcomes as well as health care costs is needed.

Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) often requires some method of localization to achieve breast-conserving therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization (MNL) for partial mastectomy in DCIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from a Breast Cancer Surgery Database. All DCIS cases undergoing partial mastectomy (PM) were identified. Margin status, re-excision rates, and cost were determined for both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients undergoing PM for DCIS were identified from the database. In the 96 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided PM (Group 1), the positive margin rate was 10.4%, and close margins (<1 mm) were observed in 22.9% after initial surgery. There were 59 patients who underwent MNL (Group 2); the positive margin rate was 11.9%, and close margins were observed in 27.1%. The difference between positive and close margins in Group 1 versus Group 2 was not statistically significant. The rate of re-excision was 20.8% for Group 1 and 30.5% for Group 2, resulting in 1.23 and 1.37 operations per patient, respectively. The average cost of an intraoperative ultrasound at our institution was $933 and $1858 for MNL (excluding cost of radiologic interpretation), a difference of $925 per case.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed equivalent rates of positive margins and re-excision between intraoperative ultrasound and MNL when performing PM for nonpalpable DCIS. Considering the more invasive nature and increased cost of MNL, we consider surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound, when possible, the more cost-effective and practical procedure for patients with DCIS.