Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Predictive Model for Breast Cancer Patients Assessing Acute Postoperative Complications: The Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Prognostic tools, such as risk calculators, improve the patient–physician informed decision-making process. These tools are limited for breast cancer patients when assessing surgical complication risk preoperatively.

Objective

In this study, we aimed to assess predictors associated with acute postoperative complications for breast cancer patients and then develop a predictive model that calculates a complication probability using patient risk factors.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2005 to 2017. Women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer who underwent either breast conservation or mastectomy procedures were included in this predictive modeling scheme. Four models were built using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. Model performance, accuracy and calibration measures during internal/external validation included area under the curve, Brier score, and Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic, respectively.

Results

A total of 163,613 women met the inclusion criteria. The area under the curve for each model was as follows: overall, 0.70; infectious, 0.67; hematologic, 0.84; and internal organ, 0.74. Brier scores were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic found all p-values to be > 0.05. Using model coefficients, individualized risk can be calculated on the web-based Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc) platform (www.breastcalc.org).

Conclusion

We developed an internally and externally validated risk calculator that estimates a breast cancer patient’s unique risk of acute complications following each surgical intervention. Preoperative use of the BCSRc can potentially help stratify patients with an increased complication risk and improve expectations during the decision-making process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. The Lancet. GLOBOCAN 2018: counting the toll of cancer. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Henley SJ, Thomas CC, Lewis DR, Ward EM, Islami F, Wu M, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers. Cancer. 2020;126(10):2250–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chauhan A, Sharma MM, Kumar K. Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Oncoplasty Breast Surgery in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer and Comparison with Conventional Breast Conservation Surgery. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2016;7(4):413–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry WT, Golshan M. Growing Use of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Despite no Improvement in Long-term Survival for Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):581–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Albornoz CR, Matros E, Lee CN, Hudis CA, Pusic AL, Elkin E, et al. Bilateral Mastectomy versus Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: The Role of Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1518–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter SA, Lyons GR, Kuerer HM, Bassett RL Jr, Oates S, Thompson A, et al. Operative and Oncologic Outcomes in 9861 Patients with Operable Breast Cancer: Single-Institution Analysis of Breast Conservation with Oncoplastic Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3190–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15–23.

  9. Jeevan R, Mennie JC, Mohanna PN, O’Donoghue JM, Rainsbury RM, Cromwell DA. National trends and regional variation in immediate breast reconstruction rates. Br J Surg. 2016;103(9):1147–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cil TD, Cordeiro E. Complications of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Involving Soft Tissue Transfer Versus Breast-Conserving Surgery: An Analysis of the NSQIP Database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3266–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carlson GW. Trends in autologous breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2004;18(2):79–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Anker CJ, Hymas RV, Ahluwalia R, Kokeny KE, Avizonis V, Boucher KM, et al. The Effect of Radiation on Complication Rates and Patient Satisfaction in Breast Reconstruction using Temporary Tissue Expanders and Permanent Implants. Breast J. 2015;21(3):233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Robertson SA, Jeevaratnam JA, Agrawal A, Cutress RI. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:141–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. El-Tamer MB, Ward BM, Schifftner T, Neumayer L, Khuri S, Henderson W. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg. 2007;245(5):665–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Losken A, Styblo TM, Carlson GW, Jones GE, Amerson BJ. Management algorithm and outcome evaluation of partial mastectomy defects treated using reduction or mastopexy techniques. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(3):235–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tenofsky PL, Dowell P, Topalovski T, Helmer SD. Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2014;207(3):398–402; discussion.

  17. Bolliger M, Kroehnert JA, Molineus F, Kandioler D, Schindl M, Riss P. Experiences with the standardized classification of surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo) in general surgery patients. Eur Surg. 2018;50(6):256–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kazaure HS, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Association of postdischarge complications with reoperation and mortality in general surgery. Arch Surg. 2012;147(11):1000–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sessler DI, Pei L, Huang Y, Fleischmann E, Marhofer P, Kurz A, et al. Recurrence of breast cancer after regional or general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10211):1807–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chatterjee A, Gass J, Burke MB, Kopkash K, El-Tamer MB, Holmes DR, et al. Results from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Oncoplastic Surgery Committee 2017 Survey: Current Practice and Future Directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2790–2794.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cordeiro E, Jackson TD, Elnahas A, Cil T. Higher rate of breast surgery complications in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an analysis of the NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Evans TA, Duquette S, Soleimani T, Christensen LF, Munshi I, Cohen A, et al. Trends in Surgical Treatment of Breast Cancer in the Veterans Affairs System. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(3):305–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Costantino JP, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(10):927–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Losken A, Hart AM, Broecker JS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. Oncoplastic Breast Reduction Technique and Outcomes: An Evolution over 20 Years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(4):824e–33e.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rezai M, Knispel S, Kellersmann S, Lax H, Kimmig R, Kern P. Systematization of Oncoplastic Surgery: Selection of Surgical Techniques and Patient-Reported Outcome in a Cohort of 1,035 Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(11):3730–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim JY, Mlodinow AS, Khavanin N, Hume KM, Simmons CJ, Weiss MJ, et al. Individualized Risk of Surgical Complications: An Application of the Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment Score. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(5):e405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Olsen MA, Nickel KB, Margenthaler JA, Fox IK, Ball KE, Mines D, et al. Development of a Risk Prediction Model to Individualize Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection After Mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(8):2471–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Thorarinsson A, Frojd V, Kolby L, Liden M, Elander A, Mark H. Patient determinants as independent risk factors for postoperative complications of breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2017;6(4):355–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Matsumoto WK, Munhoz AM, Okada A, Montag E, Arruda EG, Fonseca A, et al. Influence of advanced age on postoperative outcomes and total loss following breast reconstruction: a critical assessment of 560 cases. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2018;45(2):e1616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lavelle K, Sowerbutts AM, Bundred N, Pilling M, Todd C. Pretreatment health measures and complications after surgical management of elderly women with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102(6):653–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Trending Towards Safer Breast Cancer Surgeries? Examining Acute Complication Rates from A 13-Year NSQIP Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(2):253.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation, and updating. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):901–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. US Department of Labor. Women’s health and cancer rights. Available at: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/womens. Accessed 1 November 2018.

  35. Jonczyk MM, Jean J, Graham R, Chatterjee A. Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;173(2):267–274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cancer Facts & Figures 2020. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Basta MN, Bauder AR, Kovach SJ, Fischer JP. Assessing the predictive accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Surgical Risk Calculator in open ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg. 2016;212(2):272–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129(25 Suppl 2):S49–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilcox T, Smilowitz NR, Xia Y, Berger JS. Cardiovascular Risk Scores to Predict Perioperative Stroke in Noncardiac Surgery. Stroke. 2019;50(8):2002–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kopecky KE, Urbach D, Schwarze ML. Risk Calculators and Decision Aids Are Not Enough for Shared Decision Making. JAMA Surgery. 2019;154(1):3–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Smetana GW, Lawrence VA, Cornell JE. Preoperative pulmonary risk stratification for noncardiothoracic surgery: systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(8):581–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hammill BG, Curtis LH, Bennett-Guerrero E, O’Connor CM, Jollis JG, Schulman KA, et al. Impact of heart failure on patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2008;108(4):559–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fleisher LA, Fleischmann KE, Auerbach AD, Barnason SA, Beckman JA, Bozkurt B, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American College of Surgeons, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Vascular Medicine Endorsed by the Society of Hospital Medicine. J Nucl Cardiol. 2015;22(1):162-215.

  44. Glance LG, Kellermann AL, Osler TM, Li Y, Mukamel DB, Lustik SJ, et al. Hospital Readmission After Noncardiac Surgery: The Role of Major Complications. JAMA Surgery. 2014;149(5):439–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Smit-Fun V, Buhre WF. The patient with chronic heart failure undergoing surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016;29(3):391–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Blough JT, Vu MM, Qiu CS, Mlodinow AS, Khavanin N, Fine NA, et al. Beyond 30 Days: A Risk Calculator for Longer Term Outcomes of Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(12):e2065.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Pyfer BJ, Jonczyk M, Jean J, Graham RA, Chen L, Chatterjee A. Analysis of Surgical Trends for Axillary Lymph Node Management in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Using the NSQIP Database: Are We Following National Guidelines? Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(9):3448–3455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chatterjee A, Gass J, Patel K, Holmes D, Kopkash K, Peiris L, et al. A Consensus Definition and Classification System of Oncoplastic Surgery Developed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(11):3436–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Manrique OJ, Banuelos J, Abu-Ghname A, Nguyen M-D, Tran NV, Martinez-Jorge J, et al. Surgical outcomes of prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in young women. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. 2019;7(3):e2119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The described study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Award No. TL1TR002546, and American Cancer Society Grant No. CRP-17-112-06-COUN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael M. Jonczyk MD, MSCTS

  2. Clinical and Translational Science Graduate Program, Tufts University’s Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Boston, MA, USA

    Michael M. Jonczyk MD, MSCTS & Abhishek Chatterjee MD, MBA

  3. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Carla Suzanne Fisher MD

  4. Plastic Surgery of Southern New England, PC, Fall River, MA, USA

    Russell Babbitt MD

  5. Department of Medicine and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies (ICRHPS), Tufts Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Jessica K. Paulus ScD & Karen M. Freund MD, MPH

  6. Department of Breast Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

    Brian Czerniecki MD, PhD

  7. Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

    Julie A. Margenthaler MD

  8. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Albert Losken MD

Authors
  1. Michael M. Jonczyk MD, MSCTS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carla Suzanne Fisher MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Russell Babbitt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jessica K. Paulus ScD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen M. Freund MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian Czerniecki MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Julie A. Margenthaler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Albert Losken MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Abhishek Chatterjee MD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors would like to thank Tigran Melkonian, MS (Northeastern University), for his invaluable contributions in the development of the Shiny risk calculator and online web platform. They also thank Jason Nelson, MPH [Tufts Medical Center, Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) Center] and Dr David M. Kent, MD, CM, MSC (Tufts University Graduate School: Director, Clinical and Translational Science Graduate Program) for their invaluable feedback and guidance in the statistical methodology quality assurance measures.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael M. Jonczyk MD, MSCTS.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Michael M. Jonczyk, Carla Suzanne Fisher, Russell Babbitt, Jessica K. Paulus, Karen M. Freund, Brian Czerniecki, Julie A. Margenthaler, Albert Losken, and Abhishek Chatterjee report no conflicts of interest.

Role of the funder/sponsor

The ACS NSQIP was the sole source of data used for this study. They have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors. This project does not represent the views or plans of the ACS or the ACS NSQIP. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 508 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jonczyk, M.M., Fisher, C.S., Babbitt, R. et al. Surgical Predictive Model for Breast Cancer Patients Assessing Acute Postoperative Complications: The Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator. Ann Surg Oncol 28, 5121–5131 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09710-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09710-8

Search

Navigation