Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Disparities in Receipt of Lymph Node Biopsy Among Early-Stage Female Breast Cancer Patients

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate staging of early breast cancer requires pathological assessment of axillary lymph node involvement. We evaluated the proportion of women receiving surgery for early-stage breast cancer who do not receive any lymph node biopsy (LNB) and factors associated with not receiving LNB. Patients receiving surgery for early-stage breast cancer (T1a/T1b/T1c/T2N0) during the period 2003–2005 were selected from the National Cancer Database. Patient sociodemographic, clinical, health insurance, and facility information was collected. Logistic regression was used to assess factors predictive of not receiving LNB. The number of women meeting study inclusion criteria was 184,050, 11% of whom did not receive any LNB. Compared with White patients, Black patients had greater likelihood [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, p < 0.001] of receiving no LNB; there were no significant differences for Hispanic or other non-White patients. Individuals who were uninsured (OR 1.24, p < 0.0005) or covered by Medicare at age <65 years (OR 1.29, p < 0.0001) had greater likelihoods of no LNB compared with those with private insurance. Medicaid patients and Medicare patients ≥65 years were not significantly different from private insurance patients. Compared with the youngest quartile of patients (age ≤51 years), patients in the oldest quartile (age ≥73 years) were more than three times as likely (OR 3.30, p < 0.0001) not to receive any LNB. We conclude that, while guidelines indicate that LNB may be considered optional in certain patient groups, it remains a key component in determining stage, and thereby prognosis and appropriate treatment options. These results indicate that significant disparities exist in sampling of axillary lymph nodes among women with early-stage breast cancer.

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. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cancer Care Ontario (2003). Surgical management of early-stage invasive breast cancer. Practice guideline report #1-1 version 2.2003. Available: http://www.cancercare.on.ca/pdf/pebc1-1f.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  3. MD Anderson Cancer Center. Breast cancer—invasive. 2008. Available: http://utm-ext01a.mdacc.tmc.edu/mda/cm/CWTGuide.nsf/09ab7c4a1b0e085d86256826006ed1c5/94a2cdbf57f7a90c862563c1005dfa56/$FILE/Br%20Invasive%20V8%20Final%2002_01_08%20grp.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  4. National Cancer Institute. Breast cancer treatment (PDQ). Stage I, II, IIIA, and operable IIIC breast cancer. 2008. Available: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/breast/HealthProfessional/page7. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer treatment. 2008. Available; http://www.nccn.org/patients/patient_gls/_english/_breast/5_treatment.asp. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  6. Bland KI, Scott-Conner CE, Menck H, Winchester DP. Axillary dissection in breast-conserving surgery for stage I and II breast cancer: a National Cancer Data Base study of patterns of omission and implications for survival. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;188:586–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Truong PT, Bernstein V, Wai E, et al. Age-related variations in the use of axillary dissection: a survival analysis of 8038 women with T1–T2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:795–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Louwman WJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Houterman S, Voogd AC, van der Sangen MJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, et al. Less extensive treatment and inferior prognosis for breast cancer patient with comorbidity: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:779–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilligan MA, Kneusel RT, Hoffmann RG, Greer AL, Nattinger AB. Persistent differences in sociodemographic determinants of breast conserving treatment despite overall increased adoption. Med Care. 2002;40:181–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pierce LJ, Moughan J, White J, Winchester DP, Owen J, Wilson JF. 1998–1999 patterns of care study process survey of national practice patterns using breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in the management of stage I-II breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:183–92.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chen AY, Halpern MT, Schrag NM, Stewart A, Leitch M, Ward E. Disparities and trends in sentinel lymph node biopsy among early-stage breast cancer patients (1998–2005). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:462–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Commission on Cancer. Facility Oncology Registry Data Standards manual (FORDS). Available: http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/fords/fordsoriginal2003.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  13. Giuliano AE, Barth AM, Spivack B, Beitsch PD, Evans SW. Incidence and predictors of axillary metastasis in T1 carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;183:185–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McGee JM, Youmans R, Clingan F, Malnar K, Bellefeuille C, Berry B. The value of axillary dissection in T1a breast cancer. Am J Surg. 1996;172:501–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Parmigiani G, Berry DA, Winer EP, Tebaldi C, Iglehart JD, Prosnitz LR. Is axillary lymph node dissection indicated for early-stage breast cancer? A decision analysis. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1465–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Velanovich V. Axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer: a decision analysis of T1 lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:131–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Giordano SH, Hortobagyi GN, Kau SW, Theriault RL, Bondy ML. Breast cancer treatment guidelines in older women. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:783–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. National Quality Forum. “Quality of Cancer Care Measures” Project Steering Committee Meeting. June 16, 2005. Available: http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/cancer/breast.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2008.

  19. Martelli G, Miceli R, De Palo G, et al. Is axillary lymph node dissection necessary in elderly patients with breast carcinoma who have a clinically uninvolved axilla? Cancer. 2003;97:1156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun A, Liu FF, Pintilie M, Rawlings G. Outcome in breast cancer managed without an initial axillary lymph node dissection. Radiother Oncol. 1998;48:191–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuznetsova M, Graybill JC, Zusag TW, Hartsell WF, Griem KL. Omission of axillary lymph node dissection in early-stage breast cancer: effect on treatment outcome. Radiology. 1995;197:507–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eaker S, Dickman PW, Bergkvist L, Holmberg L; Uppsala/Orebro Breast Cancer Group. Differences in management of older women influence breast cancer survival: results from a population-based database in Sweden. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neuner JM, Gilligan MA, Sparapani R, Laud PW, Haggstrom D, Nattinger AB. Decentralization of breast cancer surgery in the United States. Cancer. 2004;101:1323–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Deutsch M, Flickinger JC. Patient characteristics and treatment factors affecting cosmesis following lumpectomy and breast irradiation. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003; 26:350–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;15(31):753–64.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mandelblatt JS, Edge SB, Meropol NJ, et al. Predictors of long-term outcomes in older breast cancer survivors: perceptions versus patterns of care. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:855–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Health Services and Social Policy Research, RTI International, 701 13th St. NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC, 20005, USA

    Michael T. Halpern

  2. Department of Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Amy Y. Chen & Elizabeth Ward

  3. Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Amy Y. Chen

  4. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Nicole S. Marlow

Authors
  1. Michael T. Halpern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Y. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole S. Marlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Halpern.

Additional information

A portion of this work was performed while Michael Halpern and Nicole Marlow were members of the Dept. of Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta GA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Halpern, M.T., Chen, A.Y., Marlow, N.S. et al. Disparities in Receipt of Lymph Node Biopsy Among Early-Stage Female Breast Cancer Patients. Ann Surg Oncol 16, 562–570 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0205-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0205-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation