Analysis of a trend reversal in US lumpectomy rates from 2005 through 2017 using 3 nationwide data sets Journal Article


Authors: Nelson, J. A.; Rubenstein, R. N.; Haglich, K.; Chu, J. J.; Yin, S.; Stern, C. S.; Morrow, M.; Mehrara, B. J.; Gemignani, M. L.; Matros, E.
Article Title: Analysis of a trend reversal in US lumpectomy rates from 2005 through 2017 using 3 nationwide data sets
Abstract: Importance: Rates of lumpectomy for breast cancer management in the United States previously declined in favor of more aggressive surgical options, such as mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Objective: To evaluate longitudinal trends in the rates of lumpectomy and mastectomy, including unilateral mastectomy vs CPM rates, and to determine characteristics associated with current surgical practice using 3 national data sets. Design and Setting: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program, and National Cancer Database (NCDB) were examined to evaluate trends in lumpectomy and mastectomy rates from 2005 through 2017. Mastectomy rates were also evaluated with a focus on CPM. Longitudinal trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed on the NCDB data set to identify predictors of lumpectomy and CPM. Results: A study sample of 3467645 female surgical breast cancer patients was analyzed. Lumpectomy rates reached a nadir between 2010 and 2013, with a significant increase thereafter. Conversely, in comparison with lumpectomy rates, overall mastectomy rates declined significantly starting in 2013. Cochran-Armitage trend tests demonstrated an annual decrease in lumpectomy rates of 1.31% (95% CI, 1.30%-1.32%), 0.07% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.12%), and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.15%-0.16%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively, from 2005 to 2013 (P <.001, P =.01, and P <.001, respectively). From 2013 to 2017, the annual increase in lumpectomy rates was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.95%-0.98%), 1.60% (95% CI, 1.59%-1.62%), and 1.66% (95% CI, 1.65%-1.67%) for NSQIP, SEER, and NCDB, respectively (all P <.001). Comparisons of specific mastectomy types showed that unilateral mastectomy and CPM rates stabilized after 2013, with unilateral mastectomy rates remaining higher than CPM rates throughout the entire time period. Conclusions: This observational longitudinal analysis indicated a trend reversal with an increase in lumpectomy rates since 2013 and an associated decline in mastectomies. The steady increase in CPM rates from 2005 to 2013 has since stabilized. The reasons for the recent reversal in trends are likely multifactorial. Further qualitative and quantitative research is required to understand the factors driving these recent practice changes and their associations with patient-reported outcomes.. © 2022 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Keywords: adult; aged; middle aged; major clinical study; mortality; united states; cancer patient; cancer radiotherapy; cancer staging; antineoplastic agent; breast cancer; mastectomy; morbidity; cohort analysis; breast neoplasms; age; postoperative complication; postoperative complications; total quality management; breast tumor; partial mastectomy; micrometastasis; cancer registry; seer program; intermethod comparison; multivariate logistic regression analysis; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; observational study; trend study; ethnicity; mastectomy, segmental; caucasian; longitudinal study; race; lumpectomy; american indian; pacific islander; prophylactic mastectomy; demographics; patient-reported outcome; procedures; population density; unilateral mastectomy; humans; human; female; article; black person
Journal Title: JAMA Surgery
Volume: 157
Issue: 8
ISSN: 2168-6254
Publisher: American Medical Association  
Date Published: 2022-08-01
Start Page: 702
End Page: 711
Language: English
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2065
PUBMED: 35675047
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC9178497
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 3 October 2022 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Monica Morrow
    772 Morrow
  2. Mary L Gemignani
    218 Gemignani
  3. Carrie Stern
    39 Stern
  4. Babak Mehrara
    448 Mehrara
  5. Evan Matros
    202 Matros
  6. Jonas Allan Nelson
    209 Nelson
  7. Jacqueline J. Chu
    27 Chu
  8. Shen Yin
    11 Yin
  9. Kathryn Ann Haglich
    27 Haglich