Survey of American and Canadian general surgeons' perceptions of margin status and practice patterns for breast conserving surgery

Breast Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 481-488

  Parvez, Elena ^a   Hodgson, Nicole ^a,b   Cornacchi, Sylvie D ^a   Ramsaroop, Amanda ^a   Gordon, Maggie ^a   Farrokhyar, Forough ^a   Porter, Geoffrey ^c   Quan, May Lynn ^d,e   Wright, Francis ^d   Lovrics, Peter J ^a,f  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES   (Canada)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f Department of Surgery Foothills Medical Centre ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

Breast conserving surgery; Margin status; Mastectomy; Re excision; Surgical decision making; Survey

Indexed keywords

AMERICAN; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANADIAN; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; GENERAL SURGEON; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHYSICIAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; RADIATION ONCOLOGIST; REOPERATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TUMOR INVASION; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908145560     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: 15244741     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12299     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. McCready D, Holloway C, Shelley W, et al. Surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer: a practice guideline. Can J Surg 2005;48:185-94.
2. Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, Düring M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol 2008;47:672-81.
3. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, 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 2012;347:1233-41.
4. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow- up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1227-32.
5. van Dangen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1143-50.
6. Arriagada R, Le MG, Guinebretiere J-M, et al. Late local recurrences in a randomised trial comparing conservative treatment with total mastectomy in early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1617-22.
7. Poggi MM, Danforth DN, Sciuto LC, et al. Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial. Cancer 2003;98:697-702.
8. Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW. Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;5:425-38.
9. Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:256-65.
10. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 2009;197: 740-6.
11. Lovrics PJ, Gordon M, Cornacchi SD, et al. Practice patterns and perceptions of margin status for breast conserving surgery for breast carcinoma: National Survey of Canadian General Surgeons. Breast 2012;21:730-4.
12. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, et al. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;17:558-63.
13. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, et al. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg 2009;209:608-13.
14. Pozen A, Cutler DM. Medical spending differences in the United States and Canada: the role of prices, procedures and administrative expenses. Inquiry 2010;47:124-34.
15. Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU. Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75.
16. Coyte PC, Dewees DN, Trebilcock MJ. Medical malpractice: the Canadian experience. N Engl J Med 1991;324:89-93.
17. Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, et al. An international comparison of cancer survival: metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, and Honolulu, Hawaii. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1866-72.
18. Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, et al. An international comparison of cancer survival: relatively poor areas of Toronto, Ontario and three US metropolitan areas. J Public Health Med 2000;22:343-8.
19. Gorey KM, Holowaty EJ, Fehringer G, et al. An international comparison of cancer survival: Toronto, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1156-63.
20. Gorey KM, Fung KY, Luginaah IN, et al. Income and long-term breast cancer survival: comparisons of vulnerable urban places in Ontario and California. Breast J 2010;16:416-9.
21. Rutgers EJT. Guidelines to assure quality in breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:568-76.
22. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:586-97.
23. Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, et al. Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg 2009;208:75-78.24.
24. Blitz A. Where is the outrage? J Am Coll Surg 2009;208: 78-9.
25. 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 2007;8:881-8.
26. Smitt MC, Horst K. Association of clinical and pathologic variables with lumpectomy surgical margin status after preoperative diagnosis or excisional biopsy of invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:1040-4.
27. Holloway CMB, Saskin R, Brackstone M, Paszat L. Variation in the use of percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis of breast abnormalities in Ontario. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2932-9.
28. Holloway CMB, Saskin R, Paszat L. Geographic variation and physician specialization in the use of percutaneous biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis. Can J Surg 2008;51:453-63.
29. Cheung WY, Pond GR, Rother M, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after curative resection for stage II/III colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2008;7:191-6.
30. Dickson-Witmer D, Bleznak AD, Kennedy JS, et al. Breast cancer care in the community: challenges, opportunities, and outcomes. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2011;20:555-80.
31. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer-bigger is not better. N Engl J Med 2012;367:79-82.
32. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:3219-32.
33. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005;293:2609-17.
34. Cao D, Lin C, Woo S-H, et al. Separate cavity margin sampling at the time of initial breast lumpectomy significantly reduces the need for reexcisions. Am J Surg Path 2005;29: 1625-32.
35. Barthelmes L, Al Awa A, Crawford D. Effect of cavity margin shavings to ensure completeness of excision on local recurrence rates following breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:644-8.
36. Coopey SB, Buckley JM, Smith BL, et al. Lumpectomy cavity shaved margins do not impact re-excision rates in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:3036-40.
37. Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002;184:383-93.
38. Guller U, Safford S, Pietrobon R, et al. High hospital volume is associated with better outcomes for breast cancer surgery: analysis of 233,247 patients. World J Surg 2005;29:994-1000.
39. Golledge J, Wiggins JE, Callam MJ. Effect of surgical subspecialization on breast cancer outcome. Br J Surg 2000;87: 1420-5.
40. Chase D, Fedewa S, Chou Y, et al. Disparities in the allocation of treatment in advanced ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:68-77.