Surgeon influence on use of needle biopsy in patients with breast cancer: A national medicare study

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 32, Issue 21, 2014, Pages 2206-2216

  Eberth, Jan M ^a   Xu, Ying ^b   Smith, Grace L ^b   Shen, Yu ^b   Jiang, Jing ^b   Buchholz, Thomas A ^b   Hunt, Kelly K ^b   Black, Dalliah M ^b   Giordano, Sharon H ^b   Whitman, Gary J ^b   Yang, Wei ^b   Shen, Chan ^b   Elting, Linda ^b   Smith, Benjamin D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURGERY; CHARLSON COMORBIDITY INDEX; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; SPECIALIZATION; SURGEON; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MEDICARE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84905851594     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.8257     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Neuss MN, Desch CE, McNiff KK, et al: A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. J Clin Oncol 23:6233-6239, 2005
2. Hewitt M, Simone J: National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine: Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1999
3. Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, et al: Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: How can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol 24:626-634, 2006 (Pubitemid 46630426)
4. Desch CE, McNiff KK, Schneider EC, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures. J Clin Oncol 26:3631-3637, 2008
5. Porter ME: What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 363:2477-2481, 2010
6. Institute of Medicine: Variation in health care spending: Target decision making, not geography. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/ Geographic-Variation2/geovariation-rb.pdf
7. Jacobson M, Earle CC, Newhouse JP: Geographic variation in physicians' responses to a reimbursement change. N Engl J Med 365:2049-2052, 2011
8. Smith GL, Xu Y, Buchholz TA, et al: Association between treatment with brachytherapy vs whole-breast irradiation and subsequent mastectomy, complications, and survival among older women with invasive breast cancer. JAMA 307:1827-1837, 2012
9. Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD, et al: Special report: Consensus conference III - Image-detected breast cancer: State-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 209:504-520, 2009
10. International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference: Image-detected breast cancer: State of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 193:297-302, 2001
11. Bassett L, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, et al: Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: A report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin 47:171-190, 1997 (Pubitemid 27226283)
12. National Quality Forum: Needle biopsy to establish diagnosis of cancer precedes surgical excision/resection. http://www.qualityforum.org/Measure Details.aspx?actid=0&SubmissionId=451#k=0221&e=1&st=&sd=&mt= &cs=&ss=&s=n&so=a&p=1
13. The American Society of Breast Surgeons: Percutaneous needle biopsy for image detected breast abnormalities. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/ PDF-Statements/Percutaneous-Needle-Biopsy.pdf
14. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Fort Washington, PA, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2012
15. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al: Image-detected breast cancer: State of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 201:586-597, 2005 (Pubitemid 41393082)
16. Nattinger AB, Laud PW, Bajorunaite R, et al: An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res 39:1733-1749, 2004 (Pubitemid 39601249)
17. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, et al: Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1258-1267, 2000 (Pubitemid 32007842)
18. Hershman DL, Buono D, McBride RB, et al: Surgeon characteristics and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:199-206, 2008 (Pubitemid 351480552)
19. Hox J: Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New York, NY, Routledge, 2010
20. Khan MHR, Shaw JEH: Multilevel logistic regression analysis applied to binary contraceptive prevalence data. J Data Sci 9:93-110, 2011
21. Molenberghs G, Verbeke G: Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. New York, NY, Springer, 2005
22. Dai J, Li Z, Rocke D: Hierachical logistic regression modeling with SAS GLIMMIX. http://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2006/Analytics/ANL-Dai.pdf
23. Gibbs P: An introduction to generalized linear mixed models using SAS PROC GLIMMIX. http://collaboratory.ucr.edu/files/glimmix.pdf
24. Porter P: "Westernizing" women's risks? Breast cancer in lower-income countries. N Engl J Med 358:213-216, 2008
25. Li J, Alterman T, Deddens JA: Analysis of large hierarchical data with multilevel logistic modeling using PROC GLIMMIX, Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. San Francisco, CA, SAS Institute, 2006
26. Wu S, Crespi CM, Wong WK: Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 33:869-880, 2012
27. Zhang J, Yu KF: What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280:1690-1691, 1998 (Pubitemid 28532993)
28. Ljung BM, Drejet A, Chiampi N, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer 93:263-268, 2001 (Pubitemid 32777533)
29. Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, et al: Systematic review: Comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med 152:238-246, 2010
30. Gutwein LG, Ang DN, Liu H, et al: Utilization of minimally invasive breast biopsy for the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. Am J Surg 202:127-132, 2011
31. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al: Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: Results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 8:881-888, 2007 (Pubitemid 47488052)
32. Friese CR, Neville BA, Edge SB, et al: Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Cancer 115:716-724, 2009
33. Williams RT, Yao K, Stewart AK, et al: Needle versus excisional biopsy for noninvasive and invasive breast cancer: Report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2003-2008. Ann Surg Oncol 18:3802-3810, 2011
34. Crystal P, Koretz M, Shcharynsky S, et al: Accuracy of sonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: Results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 33:47-52, 2005 (Pubitemid 40194410)
35. Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, et al: The accuracy of ultrasound, stereotactic, and clinical core biopsies in the diagnosis of breast cancer, with an analysis of false-negative cases. Ann Surg 242:701-707, 2005 (Pubitemid 41567126)