The Value of Repeated Breast Surgery as a Quality Indicator in Breast Cancer Care.

Breast-conserving surgery, a major achievement in surgical oncology, has allowed an increasing number of breast cancer patients to avoid the mutilation of mastectomy. However, mastectomy still is performed in certain circumstances although breast-conserving surgery would be equally safe. Many reasons, including patients' and surgeons' personal motivations, influence the decision-making process before the final choice between breast preservation and mastectomy. The importance of quality measurement and reporting in medicine is increasingly recognized, and breast surgery is no exception. The substantial variability of re-excision rates for positive surgical margins after a first attempt at breast-conserving surgery suggests that improvement is possible. Therefore, the re-excision rate has been proposed as a quality metric for assessing and comparing the performance of different institutions. Indeed, re-excision rates can be reduced by actionable factors such as accurate preoperative local staging, localization of occult lesions, and intraoperative assessment of the oriented specimen. However, equally important non-actionable risk factors pertaining the biology, detectability, and resectability of the tumor also should be taken into account. Therefore, if the re-excision rate has to be used as a performance indicator of breast surgical care, critical interpretation of results with accurate case-mix adjustment are mandatory, and reasonable targets must be appropriately set so that surgeons treating patients at higher risk of positive margins are not unduly penalized.

Reoperation rate after breast conserving surgery as quality indicator in breast cancer treatment: A reappraisal.

AIM: To analyse the role of repeated breast surgery (RBS) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) as a quality indicator in a consecutive series of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Data from 1233 breast cancer patients submitted to BCS from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. The influence of several variables on RBS rate (182/1232; 14.8%) was examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to look for significant associations with the risk of RBS. RESULTS: Surgical workload, BCS rate and clinicopathological variables were consistent over the study period, while RBS rate decreased after the introduction of shaving of cavity margins (from 17.9% to 9.5%). Tumor persistence at RBS was higher for mastectomy vs. re-excision (87.3% vs. 37.8%; p = 0.05), inconclusive vs. positive diagnostic biopsy (48.2% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.003), ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive carcinoma (69.0% vs. 51.3%; p = 0.046) and lower after neoadjuvant therapy (14.3% vs. 57.8%; p = 0.044). Several clinicopathological variables were associated with the risk of RBS, but only multifocality [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.8; p = 0.009], microcalcifications (OR: 2.0, p = 0.000), neoadjuvant therapy (OR: 0.4; p = 0.014), pathological intraoperative assessment (OR: 0.6; p = 0.010) and shaving of cavity margins (OR: 0.3; p = 0.000) retained independent value at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RBS rate can be reduced by shaving of cavity margins. Current standards for RBS should not be made more stringent due to the existence of non-actionable risk factors. The value of RBS as a quality indicator should be scrutinzed.

An Analysis of the Presence and Composition of OutLists at United States, Canadian, and European Medical Institutions.

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) medical students and physicians are exposed to bias in professional contexts. One strategy for promoting SGM visibility and inclusion within medicine is the development of institutional OutLists, which are online, opt-in lists of SGM-identified individuals affiliated with an academic institution. We present the first quantitative evaluation of publicly accessible OutLists at medical institutions in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Nineteen OutLists were identified in the United States; no OutLists were identified in other countries. All OutLists in the United States were identified at allopathic institutions with no institutional religious affiliation. Clinicians in high-prestige specialties and more senior clinicians were underrepresented on OutLists. A state-level measure of SGM equality predicted presence of OutLists within the state (odds ratio 1.429, p = .047) but was not associated with the total number of individuals on OutLists. Future research would benefit from incorporating qualitative methodologies to explore the effectiveness of OutLists and the individual experiences of participants in these lists.