Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trends in the use of mastectomy in women with small node-negative breast cancer treated at US academic centers

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides equivalent survival outcomes to unilateral mastectomy. There is no survival advantage to bilateral mastectomy in average risk breast cancer. Among a cohort of breast cancer patients expected to be candidates for BCS, we examined choice of surgery and factors associated with it. A prospective cohort study of unilateral clinical Stage I breast cancer patients treated at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers from 2000 to 2009 was performed. The proportion of patients who initially underwent mastectomy versus BCS and time to definitive surgery and chemotherapy were examined. Of 10,249 patients, 23 % underwent mastectomy as an initial surgery. No decline in the use of mastectomy as initial surgery was found. There was significant institutional variation, with rates of initial mastectomy ranging from 14 to 30 % (adjusted odds ratio: 0.42–1.38). Tumor characteristics were associated with surgical option, but with small absolute differences. Of those who received initial mastectomy, 22 % had bilateral mastectomy, with an increase over time (2000:13 % vs. 2009:30 %) and substantial institutional variation (11–34 %). Women treated with initial mastectomy had longer median times from diagnosis to complete definitive surgery (6 vs. 4 weeks) and to start of adjuvant chemotherapy (12 vs. 11 weeks). Among Stage I breast cancer, the overall use of mastectomy did not change significantly over 10 years; however, an increasing proportion of women with unilateral cancer had bilateral mastectomy, and there was wide variation in type of surgery by institution. Further studies to assess reasons for the observed wide variation are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blichert-Toft M, Rose C, Andersen JA et al (1992) Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 11:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lichter AS, Lippman ME, Danforth DN Jr et al (1992) Mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy in the treatment of stage I and II carcinoma of the breast: a randomized trial at the National Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 10:976–983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Arriagada R et al (1989) Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 14:177–184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS et al (2000) 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 92:1143–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S et al (2005) Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 366:2087–2106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kurian AW, Lichtensztajn DY, Keegan TH et al (2014) Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998–2011. JAMA 312:902–914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Du X, Freeman DH Jr, Syblik DA (2000) What drove changes in the use of breast conserving surgery since the early 1980s? The role of the clinical trial, celebrity action and an NIH consensus statement. Breast Cancer Res Treat 62:71–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB et al (1999) Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 86:628–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T et al (2009) Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 27:4082–4088

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gomez SL, Lichtensztajn D, Kurian AW et al (2010) Increasing mastectomy rates for early-stage breast cancer? Population-based trends from California. J Clin Oncol 28:e155–e157 (author reply e158)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH et al (2007) Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol 25:5203–5209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P et al (2009) Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2682–2690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guadagnoli E, Weeks JC, Shapiro CL et al (1998) Use of breast-conserving surgery for treatment of stage I and stage II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:101–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Habermann EB, Abbott A, Parsons HM et al (2010) Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol 28:3437–3441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Veum J et al (1992) Geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 326:1102–1107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morrow M, White J, Moughan J et al (2001) Factors predicting the use of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19:2254–2262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gregorio DI, Kulldorff M, Barry L et al (2001) Geographical differences in primary therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 8:844–849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greenberg CC, Lipsitz SR, Hughes ME et al (2011) Institutional variation in the surgical treatment of breast cancer: a study of the NCCN. Ann Surg 254:339–345

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kummerow KL, Du L, Penson DF et al (2015) Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg 150:9–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lizarraga I, Schroeder MC, Weigel RJ, Thomas A (2015) Surgical management of breast cancer in 2010–2011 SEER registries by hormone and HER2 receptor status. Ann Surg Oncol 22:566–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Showalter SL, Grover S, Sharma S et al (2013) Factors influencing surgical and adjuvant therapy in stage I breast cancer: a SEER 18 database analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1287–1294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weeks JC (1997) Outcomes assessment in the NCCN. Oncol (Williston Park) 11:137–140

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Punglia RS, Hughes ME, Edge SB et al (2008) Factors associated with guideline-concordant use of radiotherapy after mastectomy in the national comprehensive cancer network. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72:1434–1440

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL (2000) Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1258–1267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha O et al (1996) Can comorbidity be measured by questionnaire rather than medical record review? Med Care 34:73–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Morrow M (2005) Limiting breast surgery to the proper minimum. Breast 14:523–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM (1992) Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. N Engl J Med 326:1097–1101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tuttle TM, Rueth NM, Abbott A, Virnig BA (2012) United States trends in the surgical treatment of primary breast cancer. World J Surg 36:1475–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chagpar AB, Studts JL, Scoggins CR et al (2006) Factors associated with surgical options for breast carcinoma. Cancer 106:1462–1466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenberg SM, Tracy MS, Meyer ME et al (2013) Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 159:373–381

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Vandergrift JL, Niland JC, Theriault RL et al (2013) Time to adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:104–112

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia-HMSP-ICS/0004/201, National Cancer Institute Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Breast Cancer (NIH P50 CA089393).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Ines Vaz-Luis, Melissa E. Hughes, Angel Cronin, Michael J. Hassett, Eric P. Winer & Nancy U. Lin

  2. San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Hope S. Rugo

  3. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Stephen B. Edge

  4. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Beverly Moy

  5. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Richard L. Theriault

Authors
  1. Ines Vaz-Luis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa E. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angel Cronin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hope S. Rugo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen B. Edge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Beverly Moy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard L. Theriault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael J. Hassett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eric P. Winer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nancy U. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ines Vaz-Luis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Hope S. Rugo declared remuneration from Genomic Health and a Consultant/advisory role at Sandoz. No other disclosures were declared.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaz-Luis, I., Hughes, M.E., Cronin, A. et al. Trends in the use of mastectomy in women with small node-negative breast cancer treated at US academic centers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 155, 569–578 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3707-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3707-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation