Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 1436–1443 | Cite as

Increasing National Mastectomy Rates for the Treatment of Early Stage Breast Cancer

  • Usama Mahmood
  • Alexandra L. Hanlon
  • Matthew Koshy
  • Robert Buras
  • Saranya Chumsri
  • Katherine H. Tkaczuk
  • Sally B. Cheston
  • William F. Regine
  • Steven J. Feigenberg
Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Abstract

Background

To study national trends in the mastectomy rate for treatment of early stage breast cancer.

Methods

We analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, including 256,081 women diagnosed with T1–2 N0–3 M0 breast cancer from 2000 to 2008. We evaluated therapeutic mastectomy rates by the year of diagnosis and performed a multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine predictors of mastectomy as the treatment choice.

Results

The proportion of women treated with mastectomy decreased from 40.1 to 35.6 % between 2000 and 2005. Subsequently, the mastectomy rate increased to 38.4 % in 2008 (p < 0.0001). Simple logistic regression models demonstrated that mastectomy rates between 2005 and 2008 were moderated by age (p < 0.0001), marital status (p = 0.0230), and geographic location (p < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age, race, marital status, geographic location, involvement of multiple regions of the breast, lobular histology, increasing T stage, lymph node positivity, increasing grade, and negative hormone receptor status were independent predictors of mastectomy. Additionally, multivariate analysis confirmed that women diagnosed in 2008 were more likely to undergo mastectomy than women diagnosed in 2005 (odds ratio 1.17, 95 % confidence interval 1.13 to 1.21, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

There is evidence of a reversal in the previously declining national mastectomy rates, with the mastectomy rate reaching a nadir in 2005 and subsequently rising. Further follow-up to confirm this trend and investigation to determine the underlying cause of this trend and its effect on outcomes may be warranted.

Keywords

Early Stage Breast Cancer Contralateral Breast Cancer Breast Conservation Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Breast Conservation Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Sana Ahmedani for her assistance with figure/table formatting.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Montague E, Redmond C, et al. Comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments for primary breast cancer. A first report of results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 1977;39(6 Suppl):2827–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:665–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:6–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institutes of Health consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. 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. 1999;86:628–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Du X, Freeman DH Jr, Syblik DA. 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. 2000;62:71–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, et al. 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. 2009;16:2682–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Habermann EB, Abbott A, Parsons HM, et al. Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3437–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). About SEER. http://www.seer.cancer.gov/about.
  11. 11.
    Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, et al. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1362–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th edition. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alpert TE, Haffty BG. Conservative management of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004;5:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haffty BG. Molecular and genetic markers in the local-regional management of breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002;12:329–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robson M, Svahn T, McCormick B, et al. Appropriateness of breast-conserving treatment of breast carcinoma in women with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a clinic-based series. Cancer. 2005;103:44–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robson ME, Boyd J, Borgen PI, et al. Hereditary breast cancer. Curr Probl Surg. 2001;38:387–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, et al. The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:161–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3248–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:290–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morrow M, Harris JR. More mastectomies: is this what patients really want? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4038–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology. 2007;244:708–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hawley ST, Griggs JJ, Hamilton AS, et al. Decision involvement and receipt of mastectomy among racially and ethnically diverse breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1337–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Balch CM, Jacobs LK. Mastectomies on the rise for breast cancer: “the tide is changing.” Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2669–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith GL, Shih YC, Xu Y et al. Racial disparities in the use of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery: a national Medicare study. Cancer. 2010;116:734–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Usama Mahmood
    • 1
  • Alexandra L. Hanlon
    • 2
  • Matthew Koshy
    • 3
  • Robert Buras
    • 4
  • Saranya Chumsri
    • 5
  • Katherine H. Tkaczuk
    • 5
  • Sally B. Cheston
    • 6
  • William F. Regine
    • 6
  • Steven J. Feigenberg
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Cellular and Radiation OncologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations