Nationwide population‐based study of trends and regional variation in breast‐conserving treatment for breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1768-1777.
Published: 9th August 2018
Authors: M. C. van Maaren, L. J. A. Strobbe, L. B. Koppert, P. M. P. Poortmans, S. Siesling
Landmark trials have shown breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) combined with radiotherapy to be as safe as mastectomy in breast cancer treatment. This population‐based study aimed to evaluate trends in BCS from 1989 to 2015 in nine geographical regions in the Netherlands.
All women diagnosed between 1989 and 2015 with primary T1–2 N0–1 breast cancer, treated with BCS or mastectomy, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Crude and case mix‐adjusted rates of BCS were evaluated and compared between nine Dutch regions for two time intervals: 1989–2002 and 2003–2015. The annual percentage change in BCS per region over time was assessed by means of Joinpoint regression analyses. Explanatory variables associated with the choice of initial surgery were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.
A total of 202 934 patients were included, 82 200 treated in 1989–2002 and 120 734 in 2003–2015. During 1989–2002, the mean rate of BCS was 50·6 per cent, varying significantly from 39·0 to 71·7 per cent between the nine regions. For most regions, a marked rise in BCS was observed between 2002 and 2003. During 2003–2015, the mean rate of BCS increased to 67·4 per cent, but still varied significantly between regions from 58·5 to 75·5 per cent. A significant variation remained after case‐mix correction.
This large nationwide study showed that the use of BCS increased from 1989 to 2015 in the Netherlands. After adjustment for explanatory variables, a large variation still existed between the nine regions. This regional variation underlines the need for implementation of a uniform treatment and decision‐making strategy.Full text
You may also be interested in
Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. BJS 2019; 106: 574-585.
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Effect of preoperative injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles on rates of sentinel lymph node dissection in women undergoing surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (SentiNot study). BJS 2019; 106: 720-728.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Short‐term cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage implant‐based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two‐stage expander‐implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS 2019; 106: 586-595.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Autologous fat transplantation alters gene expression patterns related to inflammation and hypoxia in the irradiated human breast. BJS 2019; 106: 563-573.
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
Meta‐analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy‐proven node‐positive breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1541-1552.
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Feasibility study of combined dynamic imaging and lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema. BJS 2019; 106: 100-110.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
INTEND II randomized clinical trial of intraoperative duct endoscopy in pathological nipple discharge. BJS 2018; 105: 1583-1590.
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Aesthetic outcome following breast‐conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health‐related quality of life. BJS 2019; 106: 90-99.
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
Notes: Better methods needed
Current practice and short‐term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. BJS 2018; 105: 1778-1792.
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Notes: Reduces mastectomy rates
Survival and risk of breast cancer recurrence after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. BJS 2018; 105: 1446-1453.
Authors: A. Svee, M. Mani, K. Sandquist, T. Audolfsson, Y. Folkvaljon, A. E. Isern et al.