Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: Addressing overtreatment in surgical management

JAMA Oncology

Volumn 3, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 1352-1357

  Morrow, Monica ^a   Abrahamse, Paul ^b   Hofer, Timothy P ^b,c   Ward, Kevin C ^d   Hamilton, Ann S ^e   Kurian, Allison W ^f   Katz, Steven J ^b,g   Jagsi, Reshma ^b  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILATERAL MASTECTOMY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LUMPECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REOPERATION; TREND STUDY; UNILATERAL MASTECTOMY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER REGISTRY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH SERVICE; MIDDLE AGED; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATHOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGEON; SURGICAL MARGIN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRENDS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MARGINS OF EXCISION; MASTECTOMY; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MEDICAL OVERUSE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; REOPERATION; SEER PROGRAM; SURGEONS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85031827536     PISSN: 23742437     EISSN: 23742445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0774     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Katz SJ, Morrow M. Addressing overtreatment in breast cancer: the doctors’ dilemma. Cancer. 2013; 119(20):3584-3588.
2. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer: bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):79-82.
3. Morrow M, Katz SJ. Margins in ductal carcinoma in situ: is bigger really better? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(7):494-495.
4. Albornoz CR, Matros E, Lee CN, et al. Bilateral mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: the role of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6): 1518-1526.
5. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF, Shyr Y, Hooks MA. Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(1): 9-16.
6. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467-475.
7. Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14): 1551-1556.
8. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):558-563.
9. Jagsi R, Abrahamse P, Morrow M, Hamilton AS, Graff JJ, Katz SJ. Coordination of breast cancer care between radiation oncologists and surgeons: a survey study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82 (5):2072-2078.
10. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2158-2164.
11. Steiner CA, Weiss AJ, Barrett ML, Fingar KR, Davis PH. Trends in Bilateral and Unilateral Mastectomies in Hospital Inpatient and Ambulatory Settings, 2005-2013: Statistical Brief 201. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.
12. Bouganim N, Tsvetkova E, Clemons M, Amir E. Evolution of sites of recurrence after early breast cancer over the last 20 years: implications for patient care and future research. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):603-606.
13. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al; Society of Surgical Oncology; American Society for Radiation Oncology. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1507-1515.
14. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88 (3):553-564.
15. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704-716.
16. Hamilton AS, Hofer TP, Hawley ST, et al. Latinas and breast cancer outcomes: population-based sampling, ethnic identity, and acculturation assessment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(7):2022-2029.
17. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM, eds. Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2014.
18. Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, Rapelyea JA, Torrente J, Teal CB. Factors associated with re-excision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am Surg. 2010;76(3):331-334.
19. Unzeitig A, Kobbermann A, Xie XJ, et al. Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:725121.
20. Wright MJ, Park J, Fey JV, et al. Perpendicular inked versus tangential shaved margins in breast-conserving surgery: does the method matter? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(4):541-549.
21. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma: a report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1296-1305.
22. Blair SL, Thompson K, Rococco J, Malcarne V, Beitsch PD, Ollila DW. Attaining negative margins in breast-conservation operations: is there a consensus among breast surgeons? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):608-613.
23. Parvez E, Hodgson N, Cornacchi SD, et al. Survey of American and Canadian general surgeons’ perceptions of margin status and practice patterns for breast conserving surgery. Breast J. 2014;20(5): 481-488.
24. Chung A, Gangi A, Amersi F, Bose S, Zhang X, Giuliano A. Impact of consensus guidelines by the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology on margins for breast-conserving surgery in stages 1 and 2 invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(suppl 3): S422-S427.
25. Rosenberger LH, Mamtani A, Fuzesi S, et al. Early Adoption of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stage I and II invasive breast cancer: initial experience from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3239-3246.
26. Boughey JC, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, et al. Impact of analysis of frozen-section margin on reoperation rates in women undergoing lumpectomy for breast cancer: evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Surgery. 2014;156(1): 190-197.
27. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6): 503-510.
28. Schnabel F, Boolbol SK, Gittleman M, et al. A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1589-1595.
29. Zysk AM, Chen K, Gabrielson E, et al. Intraoperative assessment of final margins with a handheld optical imaging probe during breast-conserving surgery may reduce the reoperation rate: results of a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3356-3362.
30. Timmermans S, Mauck A. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):18-28.