4.7 Article

Are Mastectomy Rates Really Increasing in the United States?

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 21, Pages 3437-3441

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.6774

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose After the National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement in 1990, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) became more common while mastectomy rates decreased. However, several recently published single-institution studies have reported an increase in mastectomy rates in the past decade. We conducted a population-based study to evaluate national trends in the surgical treatment of breast cancer from 2000 through 2006. Patients and Methods Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing surgical treatment for breast cancer. We evaluated variation in mastectomy rates by demographic and tumor factors and calculated differences in mastectomy rates across time. We utilized logistic regression to identify time trends and patient and tumor factors associated with mastectomy, testing for significance using two-sided methods. Results We identified 233,754 patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I to III unilateral breast cancer from 2000 to 2006. The proportion of women treated with mastectomy decreased from 40.8% in 2000 to 37.0% in 2006 (P < .001). These patterns were maintained across patient and tumor factors. Although the unilateral mastectomy rate decreased during the study period, the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate increased. Women were less likely to receive mastectomy over time (odds ratio, 1.18 for 2000 v 2006; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.23; P < .0001), after adjusting for patient and tumor factors. Conclusion In contrast to single-institution studies, our population-based analysis found a decrease in unilateral mastectomy rates from 2000 to 2006 in the United States. Variations in referral patterns and patient selection are potential explanations for these differences between single institutions and national trends.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available