» Articles » PMID: 25185475

Surgeon and Facility Variation in the Use of Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy in Texas

Overview
Journal Ann Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2014 Sep 5
PMID 25185475
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective And Background: Minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB) rates remain well below guideline recommendations of more than 90% and vary across geographic areas. Our aim was to determine the variation in use attributable to the surgeon and facility and determine the patient, surgeon, and facility characteristics associated with the use of MIBB.

Methods: We used 100% Texas Medicare claims data (2000-2008) to identify women older than 66 years with a breast biopsy (open or minimally invasive) and subsequent breast cancer diagnosis/operation within 1 year. The percentage of patients undergoing MIBB as the first diagnostic modality was estimated for each surgeon and facility. Three-level hierarchical generalized linear models (patients clustered within surgeons within facilities) were used to evaluate variation in MIBB use.

Results: A total of 22,711 patients underwent a breast cancer operation by 1226 surgeons at 525 facilities. MIBB was the initial diagnostic modality in 62.4% of cases. Only 7.0% of facilities and 12.9% of surgeons used MIBB for more than 90% of patients. In 3-level models adjusted for patient characteristics, the percentage of patients who received MIBB ranged from 7.5% to 96.0% across facilities (mean = 50.1%, median = 49.2%) and from 8.0% to 87.0% across surgeons (mean = 50.3%, median = 50.9%). The variance in MIBB use was attributable to facility (8.8%) and surgeon (15.4%) characteristics. Lower surgeon and facility volume, longer surgeon years in practice, and smaller facility bed size were associated with lower rates of MIBB use.

Conclusions: Identification of surgeon and facility characteristics associated with low use of MIBB provides potential targets for interventions to improve MIBB rates and decrease variation in use.

Type Of Study: Retrospective cohort.

Citing Articles

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

Ryan J, Lesniak D, Cordeiro E, Campbell S, Rajaee A Ann Surg Oncol. 2023; 30(8):4695-4713.

PMID: 37036590 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13472-w.


Temporal trends and predictors of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation across a multistate healthcare system.

Brancato S, Wang M, Spinelli K, Gandhavadi M, Worrall N, Lehr E Heart Rhythm O2. 2022; 3(1):32-39.

PMID: 35243433 PMC: 8859806. DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2021.12.003.


Gradual adoption of needle biopsy for breast lesions in a rural state.

Murphy S, Yu Y, Kerrigan C, Sprague B, Sowden M Cancer Med. 2021; 10(23):8320-8327.

PMID: 34755489 PMC: 8633243. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4282.


Growth of Physicians and Nurse Practitioners Practicing Full Time in Nursing Homes.

Goodwin J, Agrawal P, Li S, Raji M, Kuo Y J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021; 22(12):2534-2539.e6.

PMID: 34274320 PMC: 8627443. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.06.019.


Clinical Value of Ultrasound-Guided Minimally Invasive Biopsy in the Diagnosis or Treatment of Breast Nodules.

Gao Y, Zhu S, Xu Y, Gao S, Zhang Y, Huang Q Cancer Manag Res. 2020; 12:13215-13222.

PMID: 33380829 PMC: 7767640. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S281605.

References
1.
Williams R, Yao K, Stewart A, Winchester D, Turk M, Gorchow A . Needle versus excisional biopsy for noninvasive and invasive breast cancer: report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2003-2008. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18(13):3802-10. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1808-y. View

2.
Friese C, Neville B, Edge S, Hassett M, Earle C . Breast biopsy patterns and outcomes in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. Cancer. 2009; 115(4):716-24. PMC: 3291169. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24085. View

3.
Gutwein L, Ang D, Liu H, Marshall J, Hochwald S, Copeland E . Utilization of minimally invasive breast biopsy for the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2011; 202(2):127-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.09.005. View

4.
Clarke-Pearson E, Jacobson A, Boolbol S, Leitman I, Friedmann P, Lavarias V . Quality assurance initiative at one institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 208(1):75-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.09.008. View

5.
Feinstein A, Soulos P, Long J, Herrin J, Roberts K, Yu J . Variation in receipt of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery: assessing the impact of physicians and geographic regions. Med Care. 2012; 51(4):330-8. PMC: 3596448. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31827631b0. View