A Statewide Approach to Reducing Re-excision Rates for Women With Breast-conserving Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Test the effectiveness of benchmarked performance reports based on existing discharge data paired with a statewide intervention to implement evidence-based strategies on breast re-excision rates. BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a common breast cancer surgery performed in a range of hospital settings. Studies have demonstrated variations in post-BCS re-excision rates, identifying it as a high-value improvement target. METHODS: Wisconsin Hospital Association discharge data (2017-2019) were used to compare 60-day re-excision rates following BCS for breast cancer. The analysis estimated the difference in the average change preintervention to postintervention between Surgical Collaborative of Wisconsin (SCW) and nonparticipating hospitals using a logistic mixed-effects model with repeated measures, adjusting for age, payer, and hospital volume, including hospitals as random effects. The intervention included 5 collaborative meetings in 2018 to 2019 where surgeon champions shared guideline updates, best practices/challenges, and facilitated action planning. Confidential benchmarked performance reports were provided. RESULTS: In 2017, there were 3692 breast procedures in SCW and 1279 in nonparticipating hospitals; hospital-level re-excision rates ranged from 5% to >50%. There was no statistically significant baseline difference in re-excision rates between SCW and nonparticipating hospitals (16.1% vs. 17.1%, P =0.47). Re-excision significantly decreased for SCW but not for nonparticipating hospitals (odds ratio=0.69, 95% confidence interval=0.52-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarked performance reports and collaborative quality improvement can decrease post-BCS re-excisions, increase quality, and decrease costs. Our study demonstrates the effective use of administrative data as a platform for statewide quality collaboratives. Using existing data requires fewer resources and offers a new paradigm that promotes participation across practice settings.

Correction to: Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer: A Prospective Study of American Society of Breast Surgeon Members.

The Disclosures in the original article are incomplete. Not included is the following information.

Opportunities to reduce reoperations and to improve inter-facility profiling after initial breast-conserving surgery for cancer. A report from the NCDB.

BACKGROUND: Repeat operations after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer have been termed "epidemic." To aid improvement activities, we sought to identify those National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) characteristics that were associated with reoperations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing initial BCS in the NCDB from 2004 to 2015 were identified. Univariate, multivariate, ranking (effect size and R2), and time-trend methods were used to assess associations between patient, facility, tumor, treatment, and calendar-year characteristics with reoperation. RESULTS: In 1226 facilities, 84,462 (16.1%) of 524,594 patients underwent reoperations after BCS [range 0-75%; 10th/90th performance percentiles = 6.6%/25%]. Of 18 factors associated with reoperations, facility ID was the highest-ranked. Its estimated impact on the odds of reoperation was more than 10 times greater than any other factor considered, followed by tumor size, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy receipt, patient age, cancer histology, and nodal status. Reoperations after the year of the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline declined significantly compared with prior years. Significant inter-facility reoperation variability persisted after risk adjustment for more than a dozen distinct patient, facility, tumor, and treatment characteristics. CONCLUSION: In the NCDB, significant inter-facility variability exists regardless of case volume, case mix, and risk adjustment. There were fewer reoperations after the SSO-ASTRO guideline. An endorsed target rate of 10% was achieved by only 1 in 4 facilities. The most impactful determinant of reoperation was the facility itself. Thus, all stakeholders should consider participation in improvement activities. Such activities will benefit from risk-adjusted profiling; the relevant adjustors were identified.

Factors Associated with Reoperation in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer: A Prospective Study of American Society of Breast Surgeon Members.

BACKGROUND: More than 20% of patients undergoing initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for cancer require reoperation. To address this concern, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) endorsed 10 processes of care (tools) in 2015 to be considered by surgeons to de-escalate reoperations. In a planned follow-up, we sought to determine which tools were associated with fewer reoperations. METHODS: A cohort of ASBrS member surgeons prospectively entered data into the ASBrS Mastery® registry on consecutive patients undergoing BCS in 2017. The association between tools and reoperations was estimated via multivariate and hierarchical ranking analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-one surgeons reported reoperations in 486 (12.3%) of 3954 cases (mean 12.7% [standard deviation (SD) 7.7%], median 11.5% [range 0-32%]). There was an eightfold difference between surgeons in the 10th and 90th percentile performance groups. Actionable factors associated with fewer reoperations included routine planned cavity side-wall shaves, surgeon use of ultrasound (US), neoadjuvant chemotherapy, intra-operative pathologic margin assessment, and use of a pre-operative diagnostic imaging modality beyond conventional 2D mammography. For patients with invasive cancer, ≥ 24% of those who underwent reexcision did so for reported margins of < 1 or 2 mm, representing noncompliance with the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Although ASBrS member surgeons had some of the lowest rates of reoperation reported in any registry, significant intersurgeon variability persisted. Further efforts to lower rates are therefore warranted. Opportunities to do so were identified by adopting those processes of care, including improved compliance with the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline, which were associated with fewer reoperations.

A Reappraisal of the Comparative Effectiveness of Lumpectomy Versus Mastectomy on Breast Cancer Survival: A Propensity Score-Matched Update From the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB).

BACKGROUND: Recent observational studies are concerning because they document rising mastectomy rates coinciding with more than a dozen reports that lumpectomy has better overall survival (OS) than mastectomy. Our aim was to determine if there were differences in OS of matched breast cancer patients undergoing lumpectomy versus mastectomy in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with stage I-III breast cancer in the NCDB (2004-2013) was identified. Propensity score matching (PSM), Kaplan-Meier, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine OS by type of surgery. RESULTS: Of 845,136 patients, 464,052 (54.9%) underwent lumpectomy and 381,084 (45.1%) underwent mastectomy. After PSM, the hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for OS in all patients comparing lumpectomy with mastectomy was 1.02 (CI, 1.00-1.04; P = .002). In patients with stage I, II, and III, they were HR 1.27 (CI, 1.23-1.36; P < .001), HR 0.98 (CI, 0.95-1.01; P = .21), and HR 0.83 (CI, 0.80-0.86; P < .001), respectively. In subgroup analyses of all patients by estrogen receptor (ER) status, they were HR 1.05 (CI, 1.03-1.07; P < .001) and HR 1.00 (CI, 0.96-1.03; P = .65) in ER+ and ER- patients. CONCLUSION: In our primary model of all stage I-III matched patients, using the most recent NCDB data and the largest observational sample size to date, the OS after mastectomy was not inferior to lumpectomy. This finding can be reassuring to patients and providers. In subgroup analyses, the association between type of surgery and OS differed by cancer stage and hormone receptor status.

Impact of the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guideline on Rates of Re-excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One in five patients undergoing initial lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer subsequently undergoes re-excision or mastectomy. A lack of clarity of when to re-excise based on lumpectomy margin width contributes to this high rate of reoperation. We sought to determine the impact of the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and American Society of Radiation Oncologist (ASTRO) margin guideline on reoperation rates after lumpectomy. The guideline recommended omission of routine re-excision in specimens with "no ink on tumor". METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed. For eligible studies, a random-effects model was used for a meta-analysis of lumpectomy re-excision prevalence before and after publication of the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline. Study heterogeneity was measured by the Cochran's Q test. RESULTS: Five institutional, one population-based, and one national registry study met inclusion requirements. Sample size per study ranged from 237 to 26,102. There was significant interstudy heterogeneity (Q = 19.779; p = 0.003). Pooled re-excision prevalence was 22% (confidence interval [CI] 20-23) before and 14% (CI 12-15) after guideline publication. With the pre-guideline re-excision prevalence used as the reference value, the associated odds ratio for re-excision after the guideline was 0.65 (CI 0.54-0.78; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of a 35% reduction in the odds of re-excision after the guideline publication and a reduction in re-excision prevalence from 22 to 14% supports the notion that the SSO-ASTRO margin guideline was impactful. These findings are congruent with the projected reductions in re-excision at the time of guideline publication.

Is it time to reconsider the term "cancer survivor"?

PURPOSE: To improve understanding of how people diagnosed with cancer perceive the term "cancer survivor" and what influences those perceptions. DESIGN: Patients' reactions to the term were surveyed quantitatively and qualitatively. SAMPLE: Women who have primarily experienced breast cancer belonging to The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation's Army of Women. METHODS: An online survey including fixed-alternative and open-ended questions. CONCLUSIONS: Using the blanket term "survivor" to label a diverse group is problematic; although the term offers a positive identity for some, others reject it or find it offensive, at least for patients like those represented in this study. If cancer patients are going to be labeled, they should choose the one that is most empowering and reflective of their experience. Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Language used in providing care or describing patients is controllable. If evidence exists that a particular term has the potential to inflict psychological harm, why use the term?

Correction to: Why Do Reoperation Rates Vary So Much After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer? Examining the Reoperation Puzzle.

In the original article the correct citation for where Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) is mentioned throughout the text.

A Strategy for Changing Adherence to National Guidelines for Decreasing Laboratory Testing for Early Breast Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Past studies indicate delays in adoption of consensus-based guideline updates. In June 2016, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network changed its guidelines from routine testing to omission of ordering complete blood cell count (CBC) and liver function tests (LFT) in patients with early breast cancer. In response, we developed an implementation strategy to discontinue our historical practice of routine ordering of these tests in asymptomatic patients. METHODS: The ordering of CBC and LFT for clinical stage I-IIIA breast cancer patients was audited in 2016. In June 2016, we utilized the levers of the National Quality Strategy implementation methodology to enact a system-wide change to omit routine ordering. To measure the plan's effectiveness, guideline compliance for ordering was tracked continually. RESULTS: Of 92 patients with early stage cancer in 2016, the overall rate of compliance with guidelines for ordering a CBC and LFT was 82% (88/107) and 87% (93/107), respectively. Segregated by the pre- and post-guideline change time period, the compliance rates for ordering a CBC and LFT were 78% and 87% (P = 0.076). CONCLUSION: In contrast to historical reports of delays in adoption of new evidence-based guideline changes, we were able to quickly change provider practice during the transition from routine ordering to omission of ordering screening blood tests in newly diagnosed patients with early breast cancer.

Select Choices in Benign Breast Disease: An Initiative of the American Society of Breast Surgeons for the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely® Campaign.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of all women encounter benign breast problems. In contrast to breast cancer, high-level evidence is not available to guide treatment. Management is therefore largely based on individual physician experience/training. The American board of internal medicine (ABIM) initiated its Choosing Wisely® campaign to promote conversations between patients and physicians about challenging the use of tests or procedures which may not be necessary. The American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) Patient safety and quality committee (PSQC) chose to participate in this campaign in regard to the management of benign breast disease. METHODS: The PSQC solicited initial candidate measures. PSQC surgeons represent a wide variety of practices. The resulting measures were ranked by modified Delphi appropriateness methodology in two rounds. The final list was approved by ASBrS and endorsed by the ABIM. RESULTS: The final five measures are as follows. (1) Don't routinely excise areas of pseuodoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast in patients who are not having symptoms from it. (2) Don't routinely surgically excise biopsy-proven fibroadenomas that are < 2 cm. (3) Don't routinely operate for a breast abscess without an initial attempt to percutaneously aspirate. (4) Don't perform screening mammography in asymptomatic patients with normal exams who have less than a 5-years life expectancy. (5) Don't routinely drain nonpainful, fluid-filled cysts. CONCLUSIONS: The ASBrS Choosing Wisely® measures that address benign breast disease management are easily accessible to patients via the internet. Consensus was reached by PSQC regarding these recommendations. These measures provide guidance for shared decision-making.

Profiling Surgeon Performance for Breast Cancer Lumpectomy by Composite Measurement of Reoperations, Cosmetic Outcomes, and Patient Preferences.

BACKGROUND: Patients want information to search for destination of care for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). To inform patients wanting a lumpectomy, we aimed to develop a pilot project that communicated composite quality measure (QM) results using a '4-star' rating system. Two patient-centered QMs were included in the model-reoperation rate (ROR) and cosmetic outcome (COSM). METHODS: A prospective database was reviewed for stage 0-3 patients undergoing initial lumpectomy by three surgeons from 2010 to 2015. Self-reported COSM was assessed by survey. Multivariate analyses were used to test for interactions between surgeon and other variables known to influence RORs and COSMs. Models of surgeon profiling were developed that summed the ROR and COSM performance scores, then reported results using a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) star-type system. Functionality for a patient to 'weight' the importance of the ratio of ROR:COSM before profiling was introduced. RESULTS: The unadjusted ROR for stage 1-3 patients for three surgeons was 9.5, 13.0, and 16.3%, respectively (p = 0.179) [overall rate 10.4% (38/366)]. After risk adjustment, differences between surgeons were observed for RORs, but not COSMs. Overall, patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor COSMs of 55, 30, 11 and 4%, respectively. Composite star scores reflected differences in performance by surgeon, which could increase, or even disappear, dependent on the patient's weighting of the ROR:COSM ratio. CONCLUSION: Composite measures of performance can be developed that allow patients to input their weighted preferences and values into surgeon profiling before they consider a destination of care for BCS.

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Nine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance. STUDY DESIGN: Surgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate "performance met" (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method. RESULTS: A total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011-2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a "never should occur" event. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded "perfect" performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.

Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic.

In 2015, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) convened a multidisciplinary consensus conference, the Collaborative Attempt to Lower Lumpectomy Reoperation Rates (CALLER). The CALLER conference endorsed a "toolbox" of multiple processes of care for which there was evidence that they were associated with fewer reoperations. We present an update of the toolbox taking into consideration the latest advances in decreasing re excision rates. In this review, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature from 2015-2018 using search terms for each tool. The original ten tools were updated with the latest evidence from the literature and our strength of recommendation. We added an additional section looking at new tools and techniques that may provide more accurate intraoperative assessment of margins. The updates on the CALLER Toolbox for lumpectomy will help guide surgeons to various resources to aid in the removal of breast cancer, while being aware of cosmesis and decreasing re excision rates.

The American Society of Breast Surgeons and Quality Payment Programs: Ranking, Defining, and Benchmarking More Than 1 Million Patient Quality Measure Encounters.

BACKGROUND: To identify and remediate gaps in the quality of surgical care, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) developed surgeon-specific quality measures (QMs), built a patient registry, and nominated itself to become a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR), thereby linking surgical performance to potential reimbursement and public reporting. This report provides a summary of the program development. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, more than 100 measures of care quality were ranked. In compliance with CMS rules, selected QMs were specified with inclusion, exclusion, and exception criteria, then incorporated into an electronic patient registry. After surgeons entered QM data into the registry, the ASBrS provided real-time peer performance comparisons. RESULTS: After ranking, 9 of 144 measures of quality were chosen, submitted, and subsequently accepted by CMS as a QCDR in 2014. The measures selected were diagnosis of cancer by needle biopsy, surgical-site infection, mastectomy reoperation rate, and appropriateness of specimen imaging, intraoperative specimen orientation, sentinel node use, hereditary assessment, antibiotic choice, and antibiotic duration. More than 1 million patient-measure encounters were captured from 2010 to 2015. Benchmarking functionality with peer performance comparison was successful. In 2016, the ASBrS provided public transparency on its website for the 2015 performance reported by our surgeon participants. CONCLUSIONS: In an effort to improve quality of care and to participate in CMS quality payment programs, the ASBrS defined QMs, tracked compliance, provided benchmarking, and reported breast-specific QMs to the public.

Does neoadjuvant chemotherapy affect morbidity, mortality, reoperations, or readmissions in patients undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy for breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: The influence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to breast cancer surgery on postoperative complications is unclear. Our objective was to determine whether NAC was associated with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy without reconstruction. METHODS: Patients meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database participant user files from 2005 through 2012, after which NSQIP discontinued the NAC variable. Primary outcome measures included a composite measure of morbidity and mortality (M&M) and reoperations and readmissions within 30 days of the index procedure. Rates of postoperative complications stratified by receipt of NAC were compared by χ2. A logistic regression model was then built that included confounding factors for M&M. RESULTS: There were 30,309 patients meeting inclusion criteria. NAC was not associated with any postoperative outcomes from 2005 through 2012, but it was associated with higher M&M in lumpectomy patients during 2011 to 2012 [P=0.011, odds ratio (OR) 2.579; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.239-5.368]. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that NAC was associated with higher M&M in lumpectomy patients during 2011 to 2012 warrants further investigation. Therefore, we recommend that the NSQIP database reinstitute the NAC variable to allow monitoring during anticipated changes in chemotherapy agents and protocols.

Fewer Reoperations After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer with Neoadjuvant Rather than Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Report from the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Reoperations occur frequently after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. The authors hypothesized that the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is associated with fewer reoperations. METHODS: The association between timing of chemotherapy and reoperation rates (ROR) after lumpectomy was investigated for patients with stages 1-3 breast cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010 to 2013 by multivariable logistic regression modeling. Then propensity score-matching was performed. RESULTS: The unadjusted ROR for 71,627 stages 1-3 patients was 11.4% for those who had NAC compared with 20.3% for those who had postoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.001) (odds ratio [OR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.57; p < 0.001). The ORs for the reoperations performed for patients with stages 1, 2, and 3 cancers who received NAC were respectively 0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.75), 0.50 (95% CI 0.45-0.56), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19-0.38) The p values for all were lower than 0.001. CONCLUSION: For a population of patients receiving chemotherapy, the receipt of chemotherapy before instead of after surgery was associated with fewer reoperations after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer.

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.

BACKGROUND: In February 2014 , the Society of Surgical Oncology and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released guidelines standardizing a negative margin after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) as "no ink on tumor" in patients with early-stage invasive cancer. We sought to determine whether reexcision rates after initial BCS decreased after guideline publication, using the ASBrS MasterySM of Breast Surgery Program. METHODS: Between January 2013 and June 2015, data from the ASBrS MasterySM database was analyzed to determine reexcision rates pre and post guideline publication. Reasons for reexcision were evaluated as were the associations with patient and provider characteristics. Chi square test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t test, ANOVA, and multivariable logistic regression were used as appropriate. All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS, with p value <0.05 as significant. RESULTS: Among 252 providers, the overall reexcision rate after initial BCS decreased by 3.7 % from 20.2 to 16.5 % (p < 0.001). Notable was a 13.8 % decrease (p < 0.001) in reexcisions being done for close margins. Of the analyzed physician and patient characteristics the majority of subgroups showed decreases between the two time periods; however, only "Percent Breast Surgery in Practice" was significant. On adjusted analysis, there were no specific patient factors associated with a reduction in reexcision rates. CONCLUSIONS: Following the SSO-ASTRO "no ink on tumor" guideline publication, a reduction in overall reexcision rates and reexcision rates for close margins after initial BCS was observed in the ASBrS MasterySM database. More widespread implementation outside this group of early adopters is anticipated with ongoing dissemination.