Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist

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

Abstract

Background

Modern breast surgical oncology incorporates many aspects of care including preoperative workup, surgical management, and multidisciplinary collaboration to achieve favorable oncologic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. However, there is variability in surgical practice and outcomes. This review aims to identify modifiable surgeon factors influencing breast surgery outcomes and provide a definition of the modern breast surgical oncologist.

Methods

A systematic literature search with additional backward citation searching was conducted. Studies describing modifiable surgeon factors with associated breast surgery outcomes such as rates of breast conservation, sentinel node biopsy, re-excision, complications, acceptable esthetic outcome, and disease-free and overall survival were included. Surgeon factors were categorized for qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 91 studies met inclusion criteria describing both modifiable surgeon factor and outcome data. Four key surgeon factors associated with improved breast surgery outcomes were identified: surgical volume (45 studies), use of oncoplastic techniques (41 studies), sub-specialization in breast surgery or surgical oncology (9 studies), and participation in professional development activities (5 studies).

Conclusions

On the basis of the literature review, the modern breast surgical oncologist has a moderate- to high-volume breast surgery practice, understands the use and application of oncoplastic breast surgery, engages in additional training opportunities, maintains memberships in relevant societies, and remains up to date on key literature. Surgeons practicing in breast surgical oncology can target these modifiable factors for professional development and quality improvement.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sakorafas GH, Safioleas M. Breast cancer surgery: an historical narrative. Part III. From the sunset of the 19th to the dawn of the 21st century. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010;19:145–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cil TD, McCready D. Modern approaches to the surgical management of malignant breast disease: the role of breast conservation, complete mastectomy, skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomy. Clin Plast Surg. 2018;45(1):1–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones C, Lancaster R. Evolution of operative technique for mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2018;98(4):835–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Magnoni F, Galimberti V, Corso G, Intra M, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Axillary surgery in breast cancer: an updated historical perspective. Semin Oncol. 2020;47(6):341–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maes-Carballo M, Gómez-Fandiño Y, Reinoso-Hermida A, et al. Quality indicators for breast cancer care: a systematic review. Breast. 2021;59:221–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: an update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:59–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Biganzoli L, Cardoso F, Beishon M, et al. The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Breast. 2020;51:65–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Landercasper J, Bailey L, Buras R, et al. The American Society of Breast Surgeons and quality payment programs: ranking, defining, and benchmarking more than 1 million patient quality measure encounters. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):3093–106.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centres. Standards Manual. 2018 [Retrieved Jan 17, 2022]. Available from: https://www.facs.org/-/media/files/quality-programs/napbc/napbc_standards_manual_2018.ashx

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Breast cancer quality standard (QS12). 2016 [retrieved Jan 17 2022]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs12/chapter/List-of-quality-statements

  11. Royal Australian College of Surgeons. Benefits of participating and performance indicators. [retrieved Jan 16 2022]. Available from: https://www.surgeons.org/research-audit/morbidity-audits/morbidity-audits-managed-by-racs/breastsurganz-quality-audit/benefits-of-participating-performance-indicators

  12. Salindera S, Ogilvy M, Spillane A. What are the appropriate thresholds for high quality performance indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand? Breast. 2020;51:94–101.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hughes L, Hamm J, McGahan C, Baliski C. Surgeon volume, patient age, and tumor-related factors influence the need for re-excision after breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 5):656–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Isaacs AJ, Gemignani ML, Pusic A, Sedrakyan A. Association of breast conservation surgery for cancer with 90-day reoperation rates in new york state. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(7):648–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, et al. Technical factors, surgeon case volume and positive margin rates after breast conservation surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):305–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. McDermott AM, Wall DM, Waters PS, et al. Surgeon and breast unit volume-outcome relationships in breast cancer surgery and treatment. Ann Surg. 2013;258(5):808–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Taban F, Elia N, Rapiti E, et al. Impact of experience in breast cancer surgery on survival: the role of quality of care in a registry-based cohort. Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w14704.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clifford EJ, De Vol EB, Pockaj BA, Wilke LG, Boughey JC. Early results from a novel quality outcomes program: the American society of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):233–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dooley WC, Bong J, Parker J. Mechanisms of improved outcomes for breast cancer between surgical oncologists and general surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3248–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eberth JM, Xu Y, Smith GL, et al. Surgeon influence on use of needle biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a national Medicare study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(21):2206–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith BD, Lei X, Diao K, et al. Effect of surgeon factors on long-term patient-reported outcomes after breast-conserving therapy in older breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(4):1013–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. De La Cruz L, Blankenship SA, Chatterjee A, et al. Outcomes after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3247–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Crown A, Handy N, Weed C, Laskin R, Rocha FG, Grumley J. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: can we reduce rates of mastectomy and chemotherapy use in patients with traditional indications for mastectomy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(4):2199–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gu J, Groot G, Boden C, Busch A, Holtslander L, Lim H. Review of factors influencing women’s choice of mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy in early stage breast cancer: a systematic review. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(4):e539–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roder D, Zorbas H, Kollias J, et al. Factors predictive of treatment by Australian breast surgeons of invasive female breast cancer by mastectomy rather than breast conserving surgery. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(1):539–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Peltoniemi P, Huhtala H, Holli K, Pylkkänen L. Effect of surgeon’s caseload on the quality of surgery and breast cancer recurrence. Breast. 2012;21(4):539–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hershman DL, Buono D, Jacobson JS, et al. Surgeon characteristics and use of breast conservation surgery in women with early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;249(5):828–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chagpar AB, Studts JL, Scoggins CR, et al. Factors associated with surgical options for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106(7):1462–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Katz SJ, Lantz PM, Janz NK, et al. Surgeon perspectives about local therapy for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104(9):1854–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Najafi M, Ebrahimi M, Kaviani A, Hashemi E, Montazeri A. Breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy: cancer practice by general surgeons in Iran. BMC Cancer. 2005;5:35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. de Camargo Cancela M, Comber H, Sharp L. Hospital and surgeon caseload are associated with risk of re-operation following breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(3):535–44.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Burkholder HC, Witherspoon LE, Burns RP, Horn JS, Biderman MD. Breast surgery techniques: preoperative bracketing wire localization by surgeons. Am Surg. 2007;73(6):574–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yen TWF, Laud PW, Pezzin LE, et al. Prevalence and consequences of axillary lymph node dissection in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. Med Care. 2018;56(1):78–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Morrow M, Jagsi R, McLeod MC, Shumway D, Katz SJ. Surgeon attitudes toward the omission of axillary dissection in early breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(11):1511–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yen TW, Laud PW, Sparapani RA, Nattinger AB. Surgeon specialization and use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):185–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Quan ML, Hodgson N, Lovrics P, Porter G, Poirier B, Wright FC. National adoption of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: lessons learned from the Canadian experience. Breast J. 2008;14(5):421–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Porter GA, McMulkin H, Lovrics PJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: Canadian practice patterns. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(3):255–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Posther KE, McCall LM, Blumencranz PW, et al. Sentinel node skills verification and surgeon performance: data from a multicenter clinical trial for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;242(4):593–602.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Coromilas EJ, Wright JD, Huang Y, et al. The influence of hospital and surgeon factors on the prevalence of axillary lymph node evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(3):323–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vuong B, Dusendang JR, Chang SB, et al. Outpatient mastectomy: factors influencing patient selection and predictors of return to care. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(1):35–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Crown A, Wechter DG, Grumley JW. oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery reduces mastectomy and postoperative re-excision rates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3363–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Baliski C, Hughes L, Bakos B. Lowering re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery: unraveling the intersection between surgeon case volumes and techniques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(2):894–901.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaczmarski K, Wang P, Gilmore R, et al. Surgeon re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery: a measure of low-value care. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228(4):504-512.e2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Landercasper J, Borgert AJ, Fayanju OM, et al. Factors associated with reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for cancer: a prospective study of American society of Breast Surgeon members. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(10):3321–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, et al. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307(5):467–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pezzin LE, Laud P, Yen TW, Neuner J, Nattinger AB. Reexamining the relationship of breast cancer hospital and surgical volume to mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Med Care. 2015;53(12):1033–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Hershman DL, Buono D, McBride RB, et al. Surgeon characteristics and receipt of adjuvant radiotherapy in women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(3):199–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tamirisa NP, Sheffield KM, Parmar AD, et al. Surgeon and facility variation in the use of minimally invasive breast biopsy in Texas. Ann Surg. 2015;262(1):171–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lovrics PJ, Gordon M, Cornacchi SD, et al. Practice patterns and perceptions of margin status for breast conserving surgery for breast carcinoma: national survey of Canadian general surgeons. Breast. 2012;21(6):730–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hershman DL, Richards CA, Kalinsky K, et al. Influence of health insurance, hospital factors and physician volume on receipt of immediate post-mastectomy reconstruction in women with invasive and non-invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(2):535–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Hawley ST, Lantz PM, Janz NK, et al. Factors associated with patient involvement in surgical treatment decision making for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(3):387–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Waljee JF, Hawley S, Alderman AK, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3694–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Morrow M, Abrahamse P, Hofer TP, et al. Trends in reoperation after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer: addressing overtreatment in surgical management. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1352–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Scher KS, Tisnado DM, Rose DE, et al. Physician and practice characteristics influencing tumor board attendance: results from the provider survey of the Los Angeles women’s health study. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(2):103–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Mukhtar RA, Wong J, Piper M, et al. Breast conservation and negative margins in invasive lobular carcinoma: the impact of oncoplastic surgery and shave margins in 358 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(11):3165–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Chauhan A, Sharma MM. Evaluation of surgical outcomes following oncoplastic breast surgery in early breast cancer and comparison with conventional breast conservation surgery. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(1):12–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW. A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72(2):145–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Losken A, Pinell-White X, Hart AM, Freitas AM, Carlson GW, Styblo TM. The oncoplastic reduction approach to breast conservation therapy: benefits for margin control. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(8):1185–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kaur N, Petit JY, Rietjens M, et al. Comparative study of surgical margins in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(7):539–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Behluli I, Le Renard PE, Rozwag K, Oppelt P, Kaufmann A, Schneider A. Oncoplastic breast surgery versus conventional breast-conserving surgery: a comparative retrospective study. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(10):1236–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kelemen P, Pukancsik D, Újhelyi M, et al. Comparison of clinicopathologic, cosmetic and quality of life outcomes in 700 oncoplastic and conventional breast-conserving surgery cases: A single-centre retrospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(2):118–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Down SK, Jha PK, Burger A, Hussien MI. Oncological advantages of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in treatment of early breast cancer. Breast J. 2013;19(1):56–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gulcelik MA, Dogan L, Yuksel M, Camlibel M, Ozaslan C, Reis E. Comparison of outcomes of standard and oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16(2):193–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Chakravorty A, Shrestha AK, Sanmugalingam N, et al. How safe is oncoplastic breast conservation? Comparative analysis with standard breast conserving surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(5):395–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Doğru V, Yaprak M, Durmaz E, et al. Oncoplastic approach to excisional breast biopsies: a randomized controlled, phase 2a trial. Breast Cancer. 2019;26(1):84–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bali R, Kankam HKN, Borkar N, Provenzano E, Agrawal A. Wide local excision versus oncoplastic breast surgery: differences in surgical outcome for an assumed margin (0, 1, or 2 mm) distance. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e1053–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Broecker JS, Hart AM, Styblo TM, Losken A. Neoadjuvant therapy combined with oncoplastic reduction for high-stage breast cancer patients. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78:S258–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wijgman DJ, Ten Wolde B, van Groesen NR, Keemers-Gels ME, van den Wildenberg FJ, Strobbe LJ. Short term safety of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery for larger tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):665–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Stallard S, Doughty JC, Mallon E, Romics L. Oncoplastic breast conservation surgery is oncologically safe when compared to wide local excision and mastectomy. Breast. 2017;32:179–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. De Lorenzi F, Hubner G, Rotmensz N, et al. Oncological results of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: Long term follow-up of a large series at a single institution: a matched-cohort analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(1):71–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Vieira RA, Carrara GF, Scapulatempo Neto C, Morini MA, Brentani MM, Folgueira MA. The role of oncoplastic breast conserving treatment for locally advanced breast tumors. A matching case-control study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016;10:61–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Mansell J, Weiler-Mithoff E, Martin J, et al. How to compare the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery - to wide local excision or mastectomy? Breast. 2015;24(4):497–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Giacalone PL, Roger P, Dubon O, et al. Comparative study of the accuracy of breast resection in oncoplastic surgery and quadrantectomy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):605–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ojala K, Meretoja TJ, Leidenius MH. Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):658–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Mazouni C, Naveau A, Kane A, et al. The role of oncoplastic breast surgery in the management of breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy. Breast. 2013;22(6):1189–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Carter SA, Lyons GR, Kuerer HM, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Khan J, Barrett S, Forte C, et al. Oncoplastic breast conservation does not lead to a delay in the commencement of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(8):887–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. De Lorenzi F, Loschi P, Bagnardi V, et al. Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for tumors larger than 2 centimeters: is it oncologically safe? a matched-cohort analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(6):1852–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Chand ND, Browne V, Paramanathan N, Peiris LJ, Laws SA, Rainsbury RM. Patient-reported outcomes are better after oncoplastic breast conservation than after mastectomy and autologous reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(7):e1419.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Veiga DF, Veiga-Filho J, Ribeiro LM, et al. Evaluations of aesthetic outcomes of oncoplastic surgery by surgeons of different gender and specialty: a prospective controlled study. Breast. 2011;20(5):407–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Kelsall JE, McCulley SJ, Brock L, Akerlund MTE, Macmillan RD. Comparing oncoplastic breast conserving surgery with mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: case-matched patient reported outcomes. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(10):1377–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Santos G, Urban C, Edelweiss MI, et al. Long-term comparison of aesthetical outcomes after oncoplastic surgery and lumpectomy in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(8):2500–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Acosta-Marin V, Acosta-Freites V, Contreras A, et al. Oncoplastic breast surgery: initial experience at the Centro Clinico de Estereotaxia-CECLINES, Caracas. Venezuela Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:470.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. de Oliveira-Junior I, Brandini da Silva FC, Nazima F, et al. Oncoplastic surgery: does patient and medical specialty influences the evaluation of cosmetic results? Clin Breast Cancer. 2021;21:247–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Crown A, Scovel LG, Rocha FG, Scott EJ, Wechter DG, Grumley JW. Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery is associated with a lower rate of surgical site complications compared to standard breast conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2019;217(1):138–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Angarita FA, Acuna SA, Cordeiro E, McCready DR, Cil TD. Does oncoplastic surgery increase immediate (30-day) postoperative complications? An analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182(2):429–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Tong WMY, Baumann DP, Villa MT, et al. Obese women experience fewer complications after oncoplastic breast repair following partial mastectomy than after immediate total breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):777–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. DeSnyder SM, Hunt KK, Dong W, et al. American Society of Breast Surgeons’ practice patterns after publication of the SSO-ASTRO-ASCO DCIS consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2965–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Shaterian A, Saba SC, Yee B, et al. Single dual-trained surgeon for breast care leads to higher reconstruction rates after mastectomy. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2600–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Zork NM, Komenaka IK, Pennington RE Jr, et al. The effect of dedicated breast surgeons on the short-term outcomes in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):280–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Caudle AS, Bedrosian I, Milton DR, et al. Use of sentinel lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis: practice patterns of American Society of Breast Surgeons members. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):2925–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Meyer AM, Reeder-Hayes KE, Liu H, et al. Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks. Med Care. 2013;51(9):812–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Landercasper J, Whitacre E, Degnim AC, Al-Hamadani M. Reasons for re-excision after lumpectomy for breast cancer: insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery(SM) database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3185–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kiderlen M, Ponti A, Tomatis M, et al. Variations in compliance to quality indicators by age for 41,871 breast cancer patients across Europe: a European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists database analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(10):1221–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. van Dam PA, Tomatis M, Marotti L, et al. Time trends (2006–2015) of quality indicators in EUSOMA-certified breast centres. Eur J Cancer. 2017;85:15–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Angarita FA, Leroux ME, Palter VN, et al. Assessing the effect of a hands-on oncoplastic surgery training course: a survey of Canadian surgeons. Surg Oncol. 2020;35:428–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2020.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. American Society of Breast Surgeons. BESAP III. [Retrieved Sept 30, 2022]. Available from: https://www.breastsurgeons.org/education/besap.

  103. Association of Breast Surgery. ABS Courses Portfolio. [Retrieved Sept 30, 2022]. Available from: https://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/courses-events/abs-courses-portfolio/.

  104. American College of Surgeons. Oncoplastic Breast Surgery. [Retrieved Sept 30, 2022]. Available from: https://learning.facs.org/content/oncoplastic-breast-surgery#group-tabs-node-course-default1.

  105. European Society of Surgical Oncology. ESSO Advanced Course on Oncoplastic Breast Surgery. [Retrieved Sept 30, 2022]. Available from: https://www.essoweb.org/courses/esso-advanced-course-oncoplastic-breast-surgery-2021/.

  106. Peiris L, Olson D, Kelly D. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery in Canada: Breaking new ground in general surgical training. Can J Surg. 2018;61(5):294–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Rubio IT, Wyld L, Esgueva A, et al. Variability in breast cancer surgery training across Europe: An ESSO-EUSOMA international survey. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(4):567–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Wyld L, Rubio IT, Kovacs T. Education and training in breast cancer surgery in Europe. Breast Care (Basel). 2019;14(6):366–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Sclafani LM, Bleznak A, Kelly T, El-Tamer MB. Training a new generation of breast surgeons: are we succeeding? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(6):1856–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Greenup RA, Obeng-Gyasi S, Thomas S, Houck K, Lane WO, Blitzblau RC, Hyslop T, Hwang ES. The effect of hospital volume on breast cancer mortality. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):375–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Okawa S, Tabuchi T, Morishima T, Koyama S, Taniyama Y, Miyashiro I. Hospital volume and postoperative 5-year survival for five different cancer sites: a population-based study in Japan. Cancer Sci. 2020;111(3):985–93.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Pezzin LE, Laud P, Yen TW, Neuner J, Nattinger AB. Reexamining the relationship of breast cancer hospital and surgical volume to mortality: an instrumental variable analysis. Med Care. 2015;53(12):1033–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Chaudhry R, Goel V, Sawka C. Breast cancer survival by teaching status of the initial treating hospital. CMAJ. 2001;164(2):183–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Katz SJ, Bondarenko I, Ward KC, et al. Association of attending surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):909–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Schulman AM, Mirrielees JA, Leverson G, Landercasper J, Greenberg C, Wilke LG. Reexcision surgery for breast cancer: an analysis of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) MasterySM Database following the SSO-ASTRO “no ink on tumor” guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(1):52–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J, Morrow M, Katz SJ. Correlates of referral practices of general surgeons to plastic surgeons for mastectomy reconstruction. Cancer. 2007;109(9):1715–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Chagpar AB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC 2nd, et al. Factors determining adequacy of axillary node dissection in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2007;13(3):233–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Hawley ST, Hofer TP, Janz NK, et al. Correlates of between-surgeon variation in breast cancer treatments. Med Care. 2006;44(7):609–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Campbell EJ, Romics L. Oncological safety and cosmetic outcomes in oncoplastic breast conservation surgery, a review of the best level of evidence literature. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017;9:521–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Losken A, Schaefer TG, Newell M, Styblo TM. The impact of partial breast reconstruction using reduction techniques on postoperative cancer surveillance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1):9–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive any dedicated funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

    Joanna F. Ryan MD, David M. Lesniak MD, PhD & A. Nikoo Rajaee MD

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Erin Cordeiro MD, MSc

  3. John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

    Sandra M. Campbell BA, MLS

Authors
  1. Joanna F. Ryan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Lesniak MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin Cordeiro MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandra M. Campbell BA, MLS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Nikoo Rajaee MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Nikoo Rajaee MD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 82 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryan, J.F., Lesniak, D.M., Cordeiro, E. et al. Surgeon Factors Influencing Breast Surgery Outcomes: A Scoping Review to Define the Modern Breast Surgical Oncologist. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 4695–4713 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13472-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13472-w

Search

Navigation