Analysis of a Trend Reversal in US Lumpectomy Rates From 2005 Through 2017 Using 3 Nationwide Data Sets

Overview

Journal JAMA Surg

Publisher American Medical Association

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2022 Jun 8

PMID 35675047

Authors

Jonas A Nelson

Robyn N Rubenstein

Kathryn Haglich

Jacqueline J Chu

Shen Yin

Carrie S Stern

Monica Morrow

Babak J Mehrara

Mary L Gemignani

Evan Matros

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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 3 467 645 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.

Citing Articles

Spatial and temporal changes of breast-conserving surgery rates and its influential factors among Chinese patients with breast cancer from 2013 to 2019: a registry-based study.

Lin Q, Li S, Shang T, Gui X, Zhu L, Yang Y BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e089188.

PMID: 39894515 PMC: 11792272. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089188.

Research progress of breast cancer surgery during 2010-2024: a bibliometric analysis.

Kang J, Jiang N, Shataer M, Tuersong T Front Oncol. 2025; 14:1508568.

PMID: 39839765 PMC: 11748804. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1508568.

Effect of Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Reconstruction on Post-Mastectomy Radiation Dosimetry.

Takayesu J, Baglien B, Edwards D, Marsh R, Shah J, Pierce L Ann Surg Oncol. 2025; .

PMID: 39808213 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16836-y.

The association of genetic testing timing and mutation type on breast cancer management in patients with breast cancer-related mutations.

Olunuga E, Thomas S, Ntowe K, Dalton J, Wang T, Chiba A Am J Surg. 2024; 239:116005.

PMID: 39393970 PMC: 11649441. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116005.

Neuropathic Pain Following Breast-conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kwee E, de Groot L, Alonso P, Krikour K, Duraku L, Hundepool C JPRAS Open. 2024; 42:48-57.

PMID: 39290400 PMC: 11405640. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2024.07.021.

References

Covelli A, Baxter N, Fitch M, McCready D, Wright F . 'Taking control of cancer': understanding women's choice for mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 22(2):383-91. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4033-7. View

Shamsunder M, Panchal H, Pilewskie M, Lee C, Razdan S, Matros E . Understanding Stakeholder Preference for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Conjoint Analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2021; 233(5):606-618.e1. PMC: 9107612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.06.025. View

Grimmer L, Liederbach E, Velasco J, Pesce C, Wang C, Yao K . Variation in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Rates According to Racial Groups in Young Women with Breast Cancer, 1998 to 2011: A Report from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015; 221(1):187-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.03.033. View

Albornoz C, Matros E, Lee C, Hudis C, Pusic A, Elkin E . Bilateral Mastectomy versus Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: The Role of Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 135(6):1518-1526. PMC: 4744797. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001276. View

Du X, Freeman Jr D, Syblik D . What drove changes in the use of breast conserving surgery since the early 1980s? The role of the clinical trial, celebrity action and an NIH consensus statement. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000; 62(1):71-9. DOI: 10.1023/a:1006414122201. View

Hawley S, Jagsi R, Morrow M, Janz N, Hamilton A, Graff J . Social and Clinical Determinants of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. JAMA Surg. 2014; 149(6):582-9. PMC: 4703398. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5689. View

McGuire K, Santillan A, Kaur P, Meade T, Parbhoo J, Mathias M . Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16(10):2682-90. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0635-x. View

Lee C, Chang Y, Adimorah N, Belkora J, Moy B, Partridge A . Decision making about surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 214(1):1-10. PMC: 3256735. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.09.017. View

Arrington A, Jarosek S, Virnig B, Habermann E, Tuttle T . Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16(10):2697-704. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0641-z. View

10.

Lazovich D, Solomon C, Thomas D, Moe R, White E . Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999; 86(4):628-37. View

11.

Kummerow K, Du L, Penson D, Shyr Y, Hooks M . Nationwide trends in mastectomy for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014; 150(1):9-16. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.2895. View

12.

Basu N, Ross G, Evans D, Barr L . The Manchester guidelines for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2015; 13:237. PMC: 4527227. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0638-y. View

13.

Poggi M, Danforth D, Sciuto L, Smith S, Steinberg S, Liewehr D . Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial. Cancer. 2003; 98(4):697-702. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11580. View

14.

Gainer S, Hunt K, Beitsch P, Caudle A, Mittendorf E, Lucci A . Changing behavior in clinical practice in response to the ACOSOG Z0011 trial: a survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19(10):3152-8. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2523-z. View

15.

Giuliano A, Hunt K, Ballman K, Beitsch P, Whitworth P, Blumencranz P . Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011; 305(6):569-75. PMC: 5389857. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.90. View

16.

Lopez C, Bluebond-Langner R, Houssock C, Slezak S, Bellavance E . Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons' Knowledge and Comfort of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Front Oncol. 2019; 8:647. PMC: 6334534. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00647. View

17.

Fisher B, Jeong J, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher E, Wolmark N . Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(8):567-75. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020128. View

18.

Wright G, Mater M, Sobel H, Knoll G, Oostendorp L, Melnik M . Measuring the impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial on breast cancer surgery in a community health system. Am J Surg. 2014; 209(2):240-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.07.001. View

19.

Vaz-Luis I, Hughes M, Cronin A, Rugo H, Edge S, Moy B . Trends in the use of mastectomy in women with small node-negative breast cancer treated at US academic centers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 155(3):569-78. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3707-1. View

20.

Wong S, Freedman R, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry W, Golshan M . Growing Use of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Despite no Improvement in Long-term Survival for Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017; 265(3):581-589. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001698. View