0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation | SURGICAL CARE OF THE AGING POPULATION

Surgeon Specialization and Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer FREE

Tina W. F. Yen, MD, MS1; Purushuttom W. Laud, PhD2; Rodney A. Sparapani, PhD2; Ann B. Nattinger, MD, MPH3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Surgical Oncology, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
2Division of Biostatistics, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
3Department of Medicine, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):185-192. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4350.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary staging in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer. It is not known whether SLNB rates differ by surgeon expertise. If surgeons with less breast cancer expertise are less likely to offer SLNB to these patients, this practice pattern could lead to unnecessary axillary lymph node dissections and lymphedema.

Objective  To explore potential measures of surgical expertise (including a novel objective specialization measure: percentage of a surgeon’s operations performed for breast cancer determined from Medicare claims) on the use of SLNB for invasive breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Population  A population-based prospective cohort study was conducted in California, Florida, and Illinois. Participants included elderly (65-89 years) women identified from Medicare claims as having had incident invasive breast cancer surgery in 2003. Patient, tumor, treatment, and surgeon characteristics were examined.

Main Outcome and Measure  Type of axillary surgery performed.

Results  Of 1703 women who received treatment by 863 surgeons, 56.4% underwent an initial SLNB, 37.2% initial axillary lymph node dissection, and 6.3% no axillary surgery. The median annual surgeon Medicare volume of breast cancer cases was 6.0 (range, 1.5-57.0); the median surgeon percentage of breast cancer cases was 4.5% (range, 0.4%-100.0%). After multivariable adjustment of patient and surgeon factors, women operated on by surgeons with higher volumes and percentages of breast cancer cases had a higher likelihood of undergoing SLNB. Specifically, women were most likely to undergo SLNB if the operation was performed by high-volume surgeons (regardless of percentage) or by lower-volume surgeons with a high percentage of breast cancer cases. In addition, membership in the American Society of Breast Surgeons (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.60) and Society of Surgical Oncology (1.59; 1.09-2.30) were independent predictors of women undergoing an initial SLNB.

Conclusions and Relevance  Patients who receive treatment from surgeons with more experience with and focus on breast cancer are significantly more likely to undergo SLNB, highlighting the importance of receiving initial treatment by specialized providers. Factors relating to specialization in a particular area, including our novel surgeon percentage measure, require further investigation as potential indicators of quality of care.

Figures in this Article

Over the past 2 decades, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been the single most important advance in the primary surgical treatment of clinically node-negative breast cancer. Compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), which involves the removal of most axillary lymph nodes, SLNB involves the removal of only a few lymph nodes (on average, 2-3 nodes).15 Several large randomized clinical trials demonstrated that SLNB is associated with similar disease-free survival when compared with ALND1,49 as well as a reduced likelihood of developing lymphedema and other arm/shoulder morbidity.1,46,1017 For these reasons, SLNB is now the standard of care for axillary staging in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer1820 and is considered a surgical quality measure by certain organizations.2123

Many women with breast cancer in the United States are cared for by surgeons with low volumes of breast cancer cases.17,2426 However, it is not known whether patients of these surgeons are as likely to undergo SLNB. If surgeons with less breast cancer expertise are less likely to offer SLNB to patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer, this practice pattern could lead to unnecessary ALNDs and cases of lymphedema.

In this report, we evaluate the relationship between surgeon characteristics and axillary surgery for invasive breast cancer by exploring several potential measures of surgeon expertise. One measure, surgeon volume of breast cancer cases, has been used as a measure of technical proficiency with regard to margin status and reexcision rates after breast-conserving surgery, use of axillary surgery, and adequacy of ALND.2730 For the present study, we developed a novel objective measure of surgical specialization: the percentage of a surgeon’s operative cases for treatment of breast cancer as determined from Medicare claims data. Prior studies2932 have evaluated the relationship of self-reported percentages of a surgeon’s practice focused on breast surgery to the type of breast surgery performed, adequacy of ALND, and patient satisfaction. Other measures of expertise investigated in the present study included the number of years in practice and membership in surgical oncology and breast-specific societies. We explored these 5 measures of surgical expertise and receipt of initial axillary surgery in a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors.

Data Sources

The study sample consisted of a population-based cohort of elderly breast cancer survivors who participated in a National Cancer Institute–sponsored survey study examining breast cancer care outcomes. Women between the ages of 65 and 89 years were identified from Medicare claims as having had an incident breast cancer surgery in 2003, using a validated claims-based algorithm.33 Details regarding study recruitment and assessments have been previously described.17,34 Briefly, potential participants were contacted by mail in September 2005, and 4 subsequent annual structured telephone interviews were conducted. For the present study, the cohort consisted of 1703 women with invasive breast cancer who completed all 4 waves of the survey, had complete information regarding pathologic nodal status, and had a surgeon identifiable by Medicare claims.

This study was approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Privacy Board, as well as our institution’s and each tumor registry’s institutional review board. Participants provided written informed consent and received $20 for each completed survey.

Data on tumor characteristics and stage were provided by state cancer registries.35 Medicare claims information was collected from inpatient, outpatient, and carrier Standard Analytical Files. Surgeon characteristics were obtained from the American Medical Association’s professional database (Physician Masterfile)36 (Table 1).37,38 Society membership was determined from online directories of the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO)39 and the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).40 Surgeons were not contacted directly for this study.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Variable Definitions and Data Sources
Variable Definitions

Table 1 summarizes the various patient, tumor, treatment, and surgeon characteristics examined and the source of information. Medicare claims data were used to determine the type of axillary surgery performed.4143 Patients were classified into 1 of 3 groups: (1) no axillary surgery; (2) initial SLNB, which includes patients who underwent only SLNB and those who went on to completion ALND either during the same operation or in subsequent surgery; and (3) initial ALND. Procedural codes in 2003 for SLNB included injection of the radioactive tracer or dye (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes A9520, 38790, and 38792) and removal of sentinel lymph nodes (CPT codes 38500 and 38525). The ALND procedural codes included those that referred only to axillary surgery (CPT codes 38740 and 38745) and those that included combined breast and axillary procedures (CPT codes 19162, 19200, 19220, and 19240).

Surgeon Characteristics

Provider codes from Medicare claims of the surgeons operating on cohort patients were linked to the 2004 American Medical Association’s Physician Masterfile to obtain surgeon characteristics. Surgeons were considered to have an academic affiliation if they performed most of their breast operations in an Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems facility,44 were employed by a medical school, or primarily practiced medical research or education. Medicare claims were used to determine annual Medicare surgeon volume of breast cancer cases, as previously described,17,45 based on claims for all breast cancer cases treated in each state, not solely for cohort patients.

The novel objective measure (surgeon percentage of practice devoted to breast cancer cases) was created. For each surgeon, the annual number of patients who underwent an initial breast cancer surgery was divided by the number of patients who underwent a general surgery operation performed that same year. General surgery operations were defined by CPT codes 10021 to 69990 and all patient-refined diagnosis related groups surgical P codes.42,46 This specialization measure was based on Medicare claims for all surgical procedures performed in each state, not solely for cohort patients.

Statistical Analysis

The conceptual framework was to model the decision to perform axillary surgery and, if the procedure was done, which type of axillary surgery (initial SLNB or ALND) was performed. We hypothesized that surgeon characteristics would affect the type of axillary surgery in a fashion incremental to clinically important preoperative factors. Variables included in these analyses were determined a priori: 5 surgeon characteristics (surgeon percentage, surgeon volume, membership in ASBrS or SSO, and years since medical school graduation), 3 patient characteristics (age; body mass index [BMI], calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; and comorbidities), and geographic location. Tumor characteristics (clinical stage, hormone receptor, and ERBB2 [formerly HER2/neu] status) could not be included because this information was not consistently recorded in the state tumor registries.

The 2 axillary surgery outcomes were analyzed by separate multiple logistic regression modeling. The first model included the entire cohort and examined the independent effects of various surgeon and patient characteristics on the likelihood of undergoing axillary surgery (initial SLNB or ALND vs no axillary surgery). In the subset of women who underwent axillary surgery, the second model examined the relationship between these same characteristics and the likelihood of undergoing initial SLNB vs ALND. Data analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc).

The mean (SD) age of the 1703 women at the time of surgery was 72.9 (5.6) years; 90.7% were white. At the time of surgery, 34.9% of the women were underweight or normal weight (BMI, <25), 26.8% were overweight (BMI, 25 to <30), 19.4% were obese (BMI, ≥30), and the BMI in 18.9% of the patients was unknown. Most (62.6%) women were healthy, with a National Cancer Institute combined comorbidity score of 0; 31.5% had a score greater than 0, and the score in 5.9% was unknown. Most women had early-stage disease: 69.9% had category T1 tumors (tumor size <2 cm); 18.8% had category T2 tumors (2-5 cm), and 2.6% had tumors larger than 5 cm; 8.6% had no reported tumor size. There were 21.7% of the women with lymph node involvement. Almost two-thirds (62.5%) underwent breast-conserving surgery; 37.5% underwent mastectomy. No axillary surgery was performed in 6.3% of the participants; 56.4% underwent an initial SLNB and 37.2% received an initial ALND. The mean number of lymph nodes removed was 7.1 (6.7), with a range of 0 to 44 (interquartile range, 9 [2-11]). Women undergoing ALND had a mean of 9.2 (6.8) nodes removed compared with 3.0 (3.2) for those undergoing SLNB (P < .001). Approximately two-thirds (67.1%) of the cohort received radiotherapy, 23.0% received chemotherapy, and 66.9% received hormonal therapy.

Surgeon Characteristics

Table 2 details the characteristics of the 863 surgeons who operated on these 1703 women. Most were male, graduated from a US medical school, and were general surgeons. Few were surgical oncologists, had an academic affiliation, or were ASBrS or SSO members. Figure 1 shows the distribution of surgeon volume and surgeon percentage. The median annual Medicare volume was 6.0 cases (range, 1.5-57.0; interquartile range, 7.5 [3.0-10.5]). Overall, 40.7% of surgeons performed fewer than 6 incident Medicare breast cancer cases annually, which equates to fewer than 15 cases in women of all ages.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Characteristics of 863 Surgeons by Surgeon Percentage Measure
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Distribution of Surgeon Volume and Percentage of Breast Cancer Cases

A, Surgeon volume. B, Surgeon percentage; 2 surgeons with a percentage greater than 60% were excluded. The sum of the first 4 percentages (24%, 30%, 17%, and 8%) shows that 79% of surgeons performed less than 10% of their operative cases for treatment of breast cancer. The remaining 21% of surgeons performed 10% or more of their operative cases for treatment of breast cancer.aPercentage values less than 1%.

Graphic Jump Location

Among all Medicare operations performed by the 863 surgeons during 1 year, the median percentage of breast cancer cases was 4.5% (range, 0.4%-100.00%; interquartile range, 6.2% [2.6%-8.8%]). Twenty-one percent of the surgeons (n = 181) conducted 10% or more of their operations to treat breast cancer (Table 2 and Figure 1B) and performed more than twice as many breast cancer operations annually as surgeons devoting less than 10% of their operations to breast cancer (mean, 19.7 vs 7.5) (Table 2). The surgeons with the higher percentage of breast cancer operations were more likely to be female, to be a surgical oncologist, to be a member of the ASBrS and SSO, and to have an academic affiliation. Only 8% and 4% of surgeons performed more than 20% and 30% of their operations to treat breast cancer, respectively.

Independent Predictors of Undergoing Axillary Surgery

Of the entire cohort, 93.7% (n = 1595) of women underwent either SLNB or ALND and 6.3% (n = 108) underwent no axillary surgery. In the multiple logistic regression model, when adjusting for surgeon and patient characteristics, the only independent predictor of undergoing any axillary surgery (SLNB or ALND) was patient age. Compared with women aged 65 to 69 years, women aged 80 years or older were significantly less likely to undergo any axillary surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.12-0.36). Patient BMI, comorbidity, and all 5 surgeon characteristics were not predictors of a woman’s likelihood of undergoing axillary surgery.

Independent Predictors of Undergoing Initial SLNB

Among the 1585 women who underwent axillary surgery, 60.4% underwent initial SLNB and 39.6% received ALND. Women operated on by surgeons who were members of the ASBrS or SSO were more likely to undergo SLNB (Table 3). Because there was no interaction between ASBrS and SSO membership (P = .92), the effects of society membership are additive. Women undergoing an operation by surgeons who were members of both the ASBrS and SSO had a 3.14 OR of undergoing SLNB (95% CI, 2.02-4.87).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Logistic Regression Model Predicting the Performance of Initial SLNB vs ALND in 1585 Womena

Women operated on by surgeons who had higher breast cancer volumes and higher percentages of breast cancer cases were also more likely to undergo SLNB. These 2 effects, however, were not additive, as indicated by an interaction between these 2 variables (P < .001). Figure 2 displays the relationship between surgeon volume, surgeon percentage, and the OR of undergoing SLNB vs ALND. All ORs are in reference to the baseline odds for a surgeon who performs 6 breast cancer cases annually, with 3% of all surgical procedures for treatment of breast cancer (baseline surgeon). For a low-volume surgeon (annual volume of 6 Medicare cases), the likelihood of a patient undergoing SLNB increased significantly with increasing surgeon percentage of breast cancer cases. Compared with the OR of the baseline surgeon, the OR for a patient undergoing an initial SLNB ranged from 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.09) if her surgeon’s percentage of breast cancer operations was 5% to 1.96 (1.03-3.05) if the surgeon’s percentage was 30%. As surgeon volume increased, the incremental effect of surgeon percentage on the OR of receiving an SLNB diminished. If a surgeon performed 12 Medicare breast cancer cases annually, the OR of a patient receiving an SLNB ranged from 1.40 (95% CI, 1.25-1.56) to 2.09 (1.44-3.05) as her surgeon’s percentage rose from 5% to 30%. At a high surgeon volume of 24 annual Medicare cases (which equates to approximately 60 annual cases of all ages), the effect of surgeon proportion was negligible.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Relationship Between Surgeon Volume, Surgeon Percentage, and the Odds Ratio (OR) of Undergoing Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) vs Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND)

Annual Medicare surgeon volume and the OR of undergoing SLNB vs ALND are depicted relative to the baseline odds of undergoing SLNB for a surgeon who performed 6 annual incident Medicare breast cancer operations and 3% of all surgical procedures for treatment of breast cancer. At each of the surgeon volumes (6, 12, and 24 cases), 4 surgeon percentages are shown. For each box, the black line represents the OR estimate, the box represents the 50% CI, and the vertical error bars represent the 95% CI.

Graphic Jump Location

Similarly, the incremental effect of surgeon volume on surgeon percentage was the greatest at the lower surgeon percentages (5% and 10%). As the surgeon percentage increased, the effect of surgeon volume became minimal. When the surgeon percentage was 30% (only 4% of the surgeons in this cohort), the incremental effect of surgeon volume was negligible. With increasingly higher surgeon volume and surgeon percentage values, the CIs widened significantly; caution must be used in interpreting the model results at the high end of surgeon volume and surgeon percentage values.

In this population-based cohort of more than 1700 elderly invasive breast cancer survivors treated by 863 predominantly community-based general surgeons, 56.4% of the women underwent an initial SLNB procedure, 37.2% underwent an initial ALND, and 6.3% underwent no axillary surgery. The surgeon characteristics evaluated in this study were measurable factors that we believed would reflect experience with breast cancer (case volume, years since medical school graduation) or degree of focus or specialization in breast cancer (percentage of total surgical procedures performed for breast cancer, ASBrS and SSO membership). None of these 5 surgeon factors was predictive of a woman’s likelihood of undergoing axillary surgery. However, if a woman underwent axillary surgery, surgeon percentage of breast cancer surgical procedures, case volume, and membership in either ASBrS or SSO were associated with the likelihood of a woman undergoing an SLNB, controlling for patient age, BMI, and comorbidity.

Specialization has been found to be beneficial in other areas of health care delivery (eg, critical care intensivists47,48). Our study results would support some degree of specialization as benefitting patients with breast cancer. Surgeons who dedicate a larger percentage of their practice to breast cancer or are members of breast and surgical oncology societies may have a greater motivation to become facile with treatment advances such as SLNB. However, it would be difficult from a health policy perspective to base provider recommendations on professional society membership because it is a surgeon’s choice to join professional societies and membership requirements vary by society. Therefore, we favor the objective measure of percentage of a surgeon’s practice that is focused on breast cancer (specialization construct), in addition to surgeon volume of breast cancer cases (experience construct), as a potential surgical quality marker.

Both higher surgeon volume and higher surgeon percentage of breast cancer cases were associated with a higher likelihood of a patient undergoing an initial SLNB. However, this relationship between surgeon volume and surgeon percentage is somewhat complex (Figure 2). As one variable increases (eg, surgeon volume), the effect of the other variable (eg, surgeon percentage) decreases. The incremental effect of higher surgeon percentage on a high-volume surgeon’s likelihood of performing an SLNB is marginal, but the incremental effect of higher surgeon percentage on a low-volume surgeon’s likelihood of performing an SLNB is substantial. This finding could partially explain why some low-volume surgeons have good outcomes if they are high-percentage surgeons. Similarly, the incremental effect of surgeon volume on a high-percentage surgeon’s likelihood of performing an SLNB is minor, but the incremental effect of surgeon volume on a low-percentage surgeon’s likelihood of performing SLNB is significant. We believe that this novel surgeon percentage measure further refines the surgeon volume measure and vice versa and warrants further investigation as a potential quality marker for surgical outcomes.

This study has several limitations. First, several tumor characteristics are typically known preoperatively and affect a surgeon’s decision to recommend axillary surgery. Information regarding the clinical tumor stage prior to surgery, hormone receptor, and ERBB2 status were not routinely recorded in the 2003 state tumor registries; therefore, we could not conclusively determine which patients were appropriate candidates for SLNB. However, these factors are unlikely to vary systematically by surgeon characteristics. Second, misclassification of the outcome is possible because this axillary surgery variable was claims based and defined by billing codes available in 2003. However, Medicare claims are generally accurate for breast cancer surgical billing codes.49,50

Finally, because this study involved Medicare patients who received treatment in 2003, a period when SLNB was considered an option to ALND for women with early-stage breast cancer51,52 but was already widely used in clinical practice,5355 our findings may not be generalizable to younger and more contemporary populations. Surprisingly, only 6.3% of the women in this elderly cohort did not undergo any axillary surgery, and if axillary surgery was performed, older women were more likely to receive ALND rather than SLNB. Studies in more current cohorts of elderly women should be performed because these findings are in contrast to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, which consider both SLNB and ALND optional in elderly patients.19,56,57 However, the fact that all patients were Medicare beneficiaries is a strength because we could identify surgeons on the basis of claims information, calculate surgeon volume and percentage of breast cancer cases, and perform our analyses of various surgeon characteristics by linkage with other sources. An observational study of this magnitude affords us an opportunity to evaluate practice patterns in the community, where most breast cancer treatment occurs.

Several previously reported2932,58,59 measures of surgeon specialization in breast cancer have been based on subjective measures: local reputation, opinion, and surgeon self-reported proportion of their total practice focused on breast cancer–related procedures. We believe that our novel objective measure, computed from health care claims, is likely to be a more reliable and sensitive surgeon-specific measure than these subjective measures and warrants further evaluation as a potential indicator of other aspects of breast cancer quality of care. Finally, this surgeon percentage/specialization measure may help refine studies that include surgeon volume in evaluating outcomes.

In summary, among this population-based large cohort of elderly invasive breast cancer survivors, women operated on by surgeons who perform more breast cancer cases, focus their practice more on breast cancer, or are members of breast and surgical oncology societies were more likely to undergo an initial SLNB. Because women who undergo SLNB are at lower risk of developing lymphedema than are those who undergo ALND, the importance of receiving initial treatment at centers that have experienced SLNB teams19 and surgeons who specialize in breast cancer must be emphasized to decrease lymphedema rates and its associated complications, which significantly affect the quality of life and medical costs of survivors.13,16,60,61 Studies addressing provider specialization are needed to determine whether this novel objective surgeon percentage measure is an indicator of improved outcomes and quality of cancer and noncancer care.

Accepted for Publication: June 29, 2013.

Corresponding Author: Tina W. F. Yen, MD, MS, Division of Surgical Oncology, Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 W Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53226 (tyen@mcw.edu).

Published Online: December 25, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4350.

Author Contributions: Dr Yen had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition of data: Sparapani.

Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Yen, Laud.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Laud, Sparapani.

Obtained funding: Yen, Nattinger.

Study supervision: Yen.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This research was supported by a Career Development Award and supplement K07CA125586 and K07CA125586-03S1 (Dr Yen) from the National Cancer Institute and by National Cancer Institute research grants R01CA81379 and R01CA127648 (Dr Nattinger).

Role of the Sponsors: The National Cancer Institute had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The content does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

Previous Presentation: This study was presented in part as an oral presentation at the Sixth Annual Academic Surgical Congress; February 3, 2011; Huntington Beach, California.

Additional Contributions: Changbin Guo, PhD, Mikesh Shivakoti, MS, and Jianing Li, MS, conducted data analyses, and Thomas Chelius, MS, assisted with the acquisition and collection of data. They received no financial compensation for these services.

Gill  G; SNAC Trial Group of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre.  Sentinel-lymph-node–based management or routine axillary clearance? one-year outcomes of Sentinel Node Biopsy Versus Axillary Clearance (SNAC): a randomized controlled surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):266-275.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langer  I, Guller  U, Berclaz  G,  et al.  Morbidity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) alone versus SLN and completion axillary lymph node dissection after breast cancer surgery: a prospective Swiss multicenter study on 659 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):452-461.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lucci  A, McCall  LM, Beitsch  PD,  et al; American College of Surgeons Oncology Group.  Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3657-3663.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Veronesi  U, Paganelli  G, Viale  G,  et al.  A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546-553.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mansel  RE, Fallowfield  L, Kissin  M,  et al.  Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(9):599-609.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zavagno  G, De Salvo  GL, Scalco  G,  et al; GIVOM Trialists.  A randomized clinical trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results of the Sentinella/GIVOM trial. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):207-213.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krag  DN, Anderson  SJ, Julian  TB,  et al; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project.  Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(10):881-888.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krag  DN, Anderson  SJ, Julian  TB,  et al.  Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(10):927-933.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Veronesi  U, Viale  G, Paganelli  G,  et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):595-600.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Erickson  VS, Pearson  ML, Ganz  PA, Adams  J, Kahn  KL.  Arm edema in breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(2):96-111.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Petrek  JA, Pressman  PI, Smith  RA.  Lymphedema: current issues in research and management. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50(5):292-307.
Link to Article
Kissin  MW, Querci della Rovere  G, Easton  D, Westbury  G.  Risk of lymphoedema following the treatment of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1986;73(7):580-584.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Engel  J, Kerr  J, Schlesinger-Raab  A, Sauer  H, Hölzel  D.  Axilla surgery severely affects quality of life: results of a 5-year prospective study in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;79(1):47-57.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kiel  KD, Rademacker  AW.  Early-stage breast cancer: arm edema after wide excision and breast irradiation. Radiology. 1996;198(1):279-283.
PubMed
Meeske  KA, Sullivan-Halley  J, Smith  AW,  et al.  Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer diagnosis in black women and white women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(2):383-391.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paskett  ED, Naughton  MJ, McCoy  TP, Case  LD, Abbott  JM.  The epidemiology of arm and hand swelling in premenopausal breast cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(4):775-782.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yen  TW, Fan  X, Sparapani  R, Laud  PW, Walker  AP, Nattinger  AB.  A contemporary, population-based study of lymphedema risk factors in older women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(4):979-988.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lyman  GH, Giuliano  AE, Somerfield  MR,  et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology.  American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7703-7720.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): breast cancer. Version 3.2013. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2013. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Official statements: guidelines for performing sentinel lymph node dissection in breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Revised November 4, 2010. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/guidelines.php. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Cancer programs: National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC): NAPBC program standards/components. American College of Surgeons. Revised April 4, 2013. http://napbc-breast.org/standards/standards.html. Accessed June 26, 2013.
National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): NQMBC-surgeon program: preview of participation. National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCDB). http://www.nqmbc2.org/Surgeon/participation-preview.html. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Official statements: quality measures: sentinel lymph node biopsy for invasive breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. November 4, 2010. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/QM/ASBrS_Sentinel_lymph_node_biopsy_for_invasive_breast_cancer.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Neuner  JM, Gilligan  MA, Sparapani  R, Laud  PW, Haggstrom  D, Nattinger  AB.  Decentralization of breast cancer surgery in the United States. Cancer. 2004;101(6):1323-1329.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Siminoff  LA, Zhang  A, Saunders Sturm  CM, Colabianchi  N.  Referral of breast cancer patients to medical oncologists after initial surgical management. Med Care. 2000;38(7):696-704.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skinner  KA, Helsper  JT, Deapen  D, Ye  W, Sposto  R.  Breast cancer: do specialists make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(6):606-615.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Allgood  PC, Bachmann  MO.  Effects of specialisation on treatment and outcomes in screen-detected breast cancers in Wales: cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(1):36-42.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lovrics  PJ, Cornacchi  SD, Farrokhyar  F,  et al.  Technical factors, surgeon case volume and positive margin rates after breast conservation surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):305-312.
PubMed
Chagpar  AB, Scoggins  CR, Martin  RC  II,  et al; University of Louisville Breast Sentinel Lymph Node Study.  Factors determining adequacy of axillary node dissection in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2007;13(3):233-237.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chagpar  AB, Studts  JL, Scoggins  CR,  et al.  Factors associated with surgical options for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106(7):1462-1466.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Waljee  JF, Hawley  S, Alderman  AK, Morrow  M, Katz  SJ.  Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3694-3698.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Katz  SJ, Hawley  ST, Abrahamse  P,  et al.  Does it matter where you go for breast surgery? attending surgeon’s influence on variation in receipt of mastectomy for breast cancer. Med Care. 2010;48(10):892-899.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nattinger  AB, Laud  PW, Bajorunaite  R, Sparapani  RA, Freeman  JL.  An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(6, pt 1):1733-1749.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nattinger  AB, Pezzin  LE, Sparapani  RA, Neuner  JM, King  TK, Laud  PW.  Heightened attention to medical privacy: challenges for unbiased sample recruitment and a possible solution. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(6):637-644.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Home page. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Inc website. http://www.naaccr.org. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Klabunde  CN, Legler  JM, Warren  JL, Baldwin  LM, Schrag  D.  A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(8):584-590.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shea  JA, Kletke  PR, Wozniak  GD, Polsky  D, Escarce  JJ; American Medical Association.  Self-reported physician specialties and the primary care content of medical practice: a study of the AMA Physician Masterfile. Med Care. 1999;37(4):333-338.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
AMA Physician Masterfile. American Medical Association (AMA). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/physician-data-resources/physician-masterfile.page. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Home page. Society of Surgical Oncology website. http://www.surgonc.org. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Home page. American Society of Breast Surgeons website. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/. Accessed June 26, 2013.
ICD-9 CM International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision: Millennium Edition, 2008. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corp; 2007.
Current Procedural Terminology: CPT 2004. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2003.
HCPCS Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System: National Level II Medicare Codes: Millennium Edition, 2008. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corp; 2007.
Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems (COTH). Association of American Medical Colleges. https://www.aamc.org/members/coth. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Nattinger  AB, Laud  PW, Sparapani  RA, Zhang  X, Neuner  JM, Gilligan  MA.  Exploring the surgeon volume outcome relationship among women with breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1958-1963.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Averill RF, Goldfield N, Hughes JS, et al. All patient refined diagnosis related groups (APR DRGs): methodology overview. Version 20.0. 2003. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/APR-DRGsV20MethodologyOverviewandBibliography.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Pronovost  PJ, Angus  DC, Dorman  T, Robinson  KA, Dremsizov  TT, Young  TL.  Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;288(17):2151-2162.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Young  MP, Birkmeyer  JD.  Potential reduction in mortality rates using an intensivist model to manage intensive care units. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(6):284-289.
PubMed
Du  X, Freeman  JL, Warren  JL, Nattinger  AB, Zhang  D, Goodwin  JS.  Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Med Care. 2000;38(7):719-727.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yen  TW, Sparapani  RA, Guo  C, Neuner  JM, Laud  PW, Nattinger  AB.  Elderly breast cancer survivors accurately self-report key treatment information. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(2):410-412.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carlson  RW.  NCCN breast cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology: an update. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003;1(suppl 1):S61-S63.
PubMed
Consensus statement on guidelines for performing sentinel lymph node dissection in breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Approved December 8, 2005. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/PDF_Statements/SLN_Dissection.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Edge  SB, Niland  JC, Bookman  MA,  et al.  Emergence of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer as standard-of-care in academic comprehensive cancer centers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(20):1514-1521.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen  AY, Halpern  MT, Schrag  NM, Stewart  A, Leitch  M, Ward  E.  Disparities and trends in sentinel lymph node biopsy among early-stage breast cancer patients (1998-2005). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(7):462-474.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rescigno  J, Zampell  JC, Axelrod  D.  Patterns of axillary surgical care for breast cancer in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(3):687-696.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Martelli  G, Boracchi  P, De Palo  M,  et al.  A randomized trial comparing axillary dissection to no axillary dissection in older patients with T1N0 breast cancer: results after 5 years of follow-up. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):1-9.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Martelli  G, Miceli  R, Daidone  MG,  et al.  Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in elderly patients with breast cancer and no palpable axillary nodes: results after 15 years of follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):125-133.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gillis  CR, Hole  DJ.  Survival outcome of care by specialist surgeons in breast cancer: a study of 3786 patients in the west of Scotland. BMJ. 1996;312(7024):145-148.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Katz  SJ, Hawley  ST, Morrow  M,  et al.  Coordinating cancer care: patient and practice management processes among surgeons who treat breast cancer. Med Care. 2010;48(1):45-51.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ahmed  RL, Prizment  A, Lazovich  D, Schmitz  KH, Folsom  AR.  Lymphedema and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5689-5696.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shih  YC, Xu  Y, Cormier  JN,  et al.  Incidence, treatment costs, and complications of lymphedema after breast cancer among women of working age: a 2-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2007-2014.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Distribution of Surgeon Volume and Percentage of Breast Cancer Cases

A, Surgeon volume. B, Surgeon percentage; 2 surgeons with a percentage greater than 60% were excluded. The sum of the first 4 percentages (24%, 30%, 17%, and 8%) shows that 79% of surgeons performed less than 10% of their operative cases for treatment of breast cancer. The remaining 21% of surgeons performed 10% or more of their operative cases for treatment of breast cancer.aPercentage values less than 1%.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Relationship Between Surgeon Volume, Surgeon Percentage, and the Odds Ratio (OR) of Undergoing Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) vs Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND)

Annual Medicare surgeon volume and the OR of undergoing SLNB vs ALND are depicted relative to the baseline odds of undergoing SLNB for a surgeon who performed 6 annual incident Medicare breast cancer operations and 3% of all surgical procedures for treatment of breast cancer. At each of the surgeon volumes (6, 12, and 24 cases), 4 surgeon percentages are shown. For each box, the black line represents the OR estimate, the box represents the 50% CI, and the vertical error bars represent the 95% CI.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Variable Definitions and Data Sources
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Characteristics of 863 Surgeons by Surgeon Percentage Measure
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Logistic Regression Model Predicting the Performance of Initial SLNB vs ALND in 1585 Womena

References

Gill  G; SNAC Trial Group of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) and NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre.  Sentinel-lymph-node–based management or routine axillary clearance? one-year outcomes of Sentinel Node Biopsy Versus Axillary Clearance (SNAC): a randomized controlled surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(2):266-275.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Langer  I, Guller  U, Berclaz  G,  et al.  Morbidity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) alone versus SLN and completion axillary lymph node dissection after breast cancer surgery: a prospective Swiss multicenter study on 659 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):452-461.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lucci  A, McCall  LM, Beitsch  PD,  et al; American College of Surgeons Oncology Group.  Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3657-3663.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Veronesi  U, Paganelli  G, Viale  G,  et al.  A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546-553.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mansel  RE, Fallowfield  L, Kissin  M,  et al.  Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(9):599-609.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Zavagno  G, De Salvo  GL, Scalco  G,  et al; GIVOM Trialists.  A randomized clinical trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results of the Sentinella/GIVOM trial. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):207-213.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krag  DN, Anderson  SJ, Julian  TB,  et al; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project.  Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(10):881-888.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Krag  DN, Anderson  SJ, Julian  TB,  et al.  Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(10):927-933.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Veronesi  U, Viale  G, Paganelli  G,  et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):595-600.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Erickson  VS, Pearson  ML, Ganz  PA, Adams  J, Kahn  KL.  Arm edema in breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(2):96-111.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Petrek  JA, Pressman  PI, Smith  RA.  Lymphedema: current issues in research and management. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50(5):292-307.
Link to Article
Kissin  MW, Querci della Rovere  G, Easton  D, Westbury  G.  Risk of lymphoedema following the treatment of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1986;73(7):580-584.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Engel  J, Kerr  J, Schlesinger-Raab  A, Sauer  H, Hölzel  D.  Axilla surgery severely affects quality of life: results of a 5-year prospective study in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;79(1):47-57.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kiel  KD, Rademacker  AW.  Early-stage breast cancer: arm edema after wide excision and breast irradiation. Radiology. 1996;198(1):279-283.
PubMed
Meeske  KA, Sullivan-Halley  J, Smith  AW,  et al.  Risk factors for arm lymphedema following breast cancer diagnosis in black women and white women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(2):383-391.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Paskett  ED, Naughton  MJ, McCoy  TP, Case  LD, Abbott  JM.  The epidemiology of arm and hand swelling in premenopausal breast cancer survivors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(4):775-782.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yen  TW, Fan  X, Sparapani  R, Laud  PW, Walker  AP, Nattinger  AB.  A contemporary, population-based study of lymphedema risk factors in older women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(4):979-988.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lyman  GH, Giuliano  AE, Somerfield  MR,  et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology.  American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7703-7720.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): breast cancer. Version 3.2013. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2013. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#breast. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Official statements: guidelines for performing sentinel lymph node dissection in breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Revised November 4, 2010. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/guidelines.php. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Cancer programs: National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC): NAPBC program standards/components. American College of Surgeons. Revised April 4, 2013. http://napbc-breast.org/standards/standards.html. Accessed June 26, 2013.
National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC): NQMBC-surgeon program: preview of participation. National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCDB). http://www.nqmbc2.org/Surgeon/participation-preview.html. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Official statements: quality measures: sentinel lymph node biopsy for invasive breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. November 4, 2010. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/QM/ASBrS_Sentinel_lymph_node_biopsy_for_invasive_breast_cancer.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Neuner  JM, Gilligan  MA, Sparapani  R, Laud  PW, Haggstrom  D, Nattinger  AB.  Decentralization of breast cancer surgery in the United States. Cancer. 2004;101(6):1323-1329.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Siminoff  LA, Zhang  A, Saunders Sturm  CM, Colabianchi  N.  Referral of breast cancer patients to medical oncologists after initial surgical management. Med Care. 2000;38(7):696-704.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skinner  KA, Helsper  JT, Deapen  D, Ye  W, Sposto  R.  Breast cancer: do specialists make a difference? Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(6):606-615.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Allgood  PC, Bachmann  MO.  Effects of specialisation on treatment and outcomes in screen-detected breast cancers in Wales: cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(1):36-42.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lovrics  PJ, Cornacchi  SD, Farrokhyar  F,  et al.  Technical factors, surgeon case volume and positive margin rates after breast conservation surgery for early-stage breast cancer. Can J Surg. 2010;53(5):305-312.
PubMed
Chagpar  AB, Scoggins  CR, Martin  RC  II,  et al; University of Louisville Breast Sentinel Lymph Node Study.  Factors determining adequacy of axillary node dissection in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2007;13(3):233-237.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chagpar  AB, Studts  JL, Scoggins  CR,  et al.  Factors associated with surgical options for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2006;106(7):1462-1466.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Waljee  JF, Hawley  S, Alderman  AK, Morrow  M, Katz  SJ.  Patient satisfaction with treatment of breast cancer: does surgeon specialization matter? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3694-3698.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Katz  SJ, Hawley  ST, Abrahamse  P,  et al.  Does it matter where you go for breast surgery? attending surgeon’s influence on variation in receipt of mastectomy for breast cancer. Med Care. 2010;48(10):892-899.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nattinger  AB, Laud  PW, Bajorunaite  R, Sparapani  RA, Freeman  JL.  An algorithm for the use of Medicare claims data to identify women with incident breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(6, pt 1):1733-1749.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nattinger  AB, Pezzin  LE, Sparapani  RA, Neuner  JM, King  TK, Laud  PW.  Heightened attention to medical privacy: challenges for unbiased sample recruitment and a possible solution. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(6):637-644.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Home page. North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Inc website. http://www.naaccr.org. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Klabunde  CN, Legler  JM, Warren  JL, Baldwin  LM, Schrag  D.  A refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(8):584-590.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shea  JA, Kletke  PR, Wozniak  GD, Polsky  D, Escarce  JJ; American Medical Association.  Self-reported physician specialties and the primary care content of medical practice: a study of the AMA Physician Masterfile. Med Care. 1999;37(4):333-338.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
AMA Physician Masterfile. American Medical Association (AMA). http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/physician-data-resources/physician-masterfile.page. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Home page. Society of Surgical Oncology website. http://www.surgonc.org. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Home page. American Society of Breast Surgeons website. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/. Accessed June 26, 2013.
ICD-9 CM International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision: Millennium Edition, 2008. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corp; 2007.
Current Procedural Terminology: CPT 2004. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2003.
HCPCS Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System: National Level II Medicare Codes: Millennium Edition, 2008. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corp; 2007.
Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems (COTH). Association of American Medical Colleges. https://www.aamc.org/members/coth. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Nattinger  AB, Laud  PW, Sparapani  RA, Zhang  X, Neuner  JM, Gilligan  MA.  Exploring the surgeon volume outcome relationship among women with breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1958-1963.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Averill RF, Goldfield N, Hughes JS, et al. All patient refined diagnosis related groups (APR DRGs): methodology overview. Version 20.0. 2003. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/APR-DRGsV20MethodologyOverviewandBibliography.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Pronovost  PJ, Angus  DC, Dorman  T, Robinson  KA, Dremsizov  TT, Young  TL.  Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;288(17):2151-2162.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Young  MP, Birkmeyer  JD.  Potential reduction in mortality rates using an intensivist model to manage intensive care units. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3(6):284-289.
PubMed
Du  X, Freeman  JL, Warren  JL, Nattinger  AB, Zhang  D, Goodwin  JS.  Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Med Care. 2000;38(7):719-727.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yen  TW, Sparapani  RA, Guo  C, Neuner  JM, Laud  PW, Nattinger  AB.  Elderly breast cancer survivors accurately self-report key treatment information. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(2):410-412.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carlson  RW.  NCCN breast cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology: an update. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003;1(suppl 1):S61-S63.
PubMed
Consensus statement on guidelines for performing sentinel lymph node dissection in breast cancer. American Society of Breast Surgeons. Approved December 8, 2005. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/PDF_Statements/SLN_Dissection.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2013.
Edge  SB, Niland  JC, Bookman  MA,  et al.  Emergence of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer as standard-of-care in academic comprehensive cancer centers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(20):1514-1521.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen  AY, Halpern  MT, Schrag  NM, Stewart  A, Leitch  M, Ward  E.  Disparities and trends in sentinel lymph node biopsy among early-stage breast cancer patients (1998-2005). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(7):462-474.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rescigno  J, Zampell  JC, Axelrod  D.  Patterns of axillary surgical care for breast cancer in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(3):687-696.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Martelli  G, Boracchi  P, De Palo  M,  et al.  A randomized trial comparing axillary dissection to no axillary dissection in older patients with T1N0 breast cancer: results after 5 years of follow-up. Ann Surg. 2005;242(1):1-9.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Martelli  G, Miceli  R, Daidone  MG,  et al.  Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in elderly patients with breast cancer and no palpable axillary nodes: results after 15 years of follow-up. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(1):125-133.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gillis  CR, Hole  DJ.  Survival outcome of care by specialist surgeons in breast cancer: a study of 3786 patients in the west of Scotland. BMJ. 1996;312(7024):145-148.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Katz  SJ, Hawley  ST, Morrow  M,  et al.  Coordinating cancer care: patient and practice management processes among surgeons who treat breast cancer. Med Care. 2010;48(1):45-51.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ahmed  RL, Prizment  A, Lazovich  D, Schmitz  KH, Folsom  AR.  Lymphedema and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5689-5696.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shih  YC, Xu  Y, Cormier  JN,  et al.  Incidence, treatment costs, and complications of lymphedema after breast cancer among women of working age: a 2-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2007-2014.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

857 Views
2 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
×