Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 469–476

Comorbidity and outcomes after surgery among women with breast cancer: analysis of nationwide in-patient sample database

Epidemiology

Abstract

To examine the effect of comorbidity on risk of postoperative complications, prolonged hospitalization (defined as above median length of stay), non-routine disposition, and in-patient death among women with breast cancer after surgery. Nationwide in-patient sample is a nationwide clinical and administrative database. Discharges of patients aged 40 years and older who underwent surgery for breast cancer from 2005 to 2009 were identified. Information about patients and hospitals characteristics were obtained. Comorbidities were identified and used to calculate Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score. We divided patients based on these scores into four groups: 0, 1, 2, and ≥3. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine risk adjusted association between CCI score and the aforementioned outcomes. We identified 70,536 patients’ discharges. Compared to a CCI score of zero as a reference group, CCI scores of 1, 2, and ≥3 increased the risk of post-operative complications by 1.7-fold, 2.6-fold, and 4.6-fold, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients with CCI scores of 1, 2, and ≥3 had higher risk of non-routine disposition by 1.3-folds, 1.7-folds, and 2.2-folds, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients with CCI scores of 1, 2, and ≥3 had higher risk of prolonged hospitalization by 1.2-folds, 1.6-folds, and 2.3-folds, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, CCI scores of 1, 2, and ≥3 increased risk of in-patient death by 3.1-folds (p 0.05), 5.4-folds (p 0.008), and 15.8-folds (p < 0.001), respectively. Comorbidity associated with worse in-hospital outcomes among women with breast cancer after surgery. Effective control of comorbidity in breast cancer patients may reduce post-operative morbidity and mortality.

Keywords

Comorbidity Breast cancer Surgery In-hospital outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Gijsen R, Hoeymans N, Schellevis FG et al (2001) Causes and consequences of comorbidity: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 54:661–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergman L, Dekker G, Van Kerkhoff EH et al (1991) Influence of age and comorbidity on treatment choice and survival in elderly patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 18:189–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yancik R, Wesley MN, Ries LA et al (2011) Effect of age and comorbidity in postmenopausal breast cancer patients aged 55 years and older. JAMA 285:885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenfield S, Blanco DM, Elashoff RM et al (1987) Patterns of care related to age of breast cancer patients. JAMA 257:2766–2770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cleary PD, Greenfield S, Mulley AG et al (1991) Variations in length of stay and outcomes for six medical and surgical conditions in Massachusetts and California. JAMA 266:73–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA (1992) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 45:613–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenfield S, Apolone G, McNeil BJ et al (1993) The importance of co-existent disease in the occurrence of postoperative complications and one-year recovery in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Comorbidity and outcomes after hip replacement. Med Care 31:141–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR (1974) The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis 27:387–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jencks SF, Williams DK, Kay TL (1988) Assessing hospital associated deaths from discharge data: the role of length of stay and comorbidities. JAMA 260:2240–2246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    HCUP Databases (2011) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 23 Jan 2013
  11. 11.
    Publications from the HCUP Databases (2011) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/pubsearch/pubsearch.jsp. Accessed 23 Jan 2013
  12. 12.
    Zhang S, Ivy JS, Payton FC et al (2010) Modeling the impact of comorbidity on breast cancer patient outcomes. Health Care Manag Sci 13:137–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polek C, Klemm P, Hardie T et al (2004) Asian/Pacific Islander American women: age and death rates during hospitalization for breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 31:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotwall C, Brinker C, Covington D et al (2003) Local and national trends over a decade in the surgical treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 186:723–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Case C, Johantgen M, Steiner C (2001) Outpatient mastectomy: clinical, payer, and geographic influences. Health Serv Res 36:869–884PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reuben BC, Manwaring J, Neumayer LA (2009) Recent trends and predictors in immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy in the United States. Am J Surg 198:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shavers VL, Harlan LC, Stevens JL (2003) Racial/ethnic variation in clinical presentation, treatment, and survival among breast cancer patients under age 35. Cancer 97:1143–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Upchurch GR et al (2005) National trends in outcomes for esophageal resection. Ann Thorac Surg 79:212–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Finlayson EV, Goodney PP, Birkmeyer JD (2003) Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study. Arch Surg 138:721–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guller U, Safford S, Pietrobon R et al (2005) High hospital volume is associated with better outcomes for breast cancer surgery: analysis of 233,247 Patients. World J Surg 29:994–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gonnella JS (1996) Disease Staging, 4th edn. The MEDSTAT Group, SysteMetrics Division, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M et al (1995) Predicting who dies depends on how severity is measured: implications for evaluating patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 123:763–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Houterman S, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Verheij CD et al (2004) Comorbidity has negligible impact on treatment and complications but influences survival in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 90:2332–2337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Librero J, Peiro S, Ordnana R (1999) Chronic comorbidity and outcomes of hospital care: length of stay, mortality, and readmission at 30 and 365 days. J Clin Epidemiol 52:171–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Land LH, Dalton SO, Jensen MB et al (2012) Impact of comorbidity on mortality: a cohort study of 62,591 Danish women diagnosed with early breast cancer, 1990–2008. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131:1013–1020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahem TP, Lash TL, Thwin SS et al (2009) Impact of acquired comorbidities on all-cause mortality rates among older breast cancer survivors. Med Care 47:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arrowhead Regional Medical CenterColtonUSA
  2. 2.Tulane University Health Science CenterNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Kaiser PermanenteFontanaUSA

Personalised recommendations