Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics

Objectives To examine whether rate of reoperation after breast conserving surgery is associated with patients’ characteristics and investigate whether reoperation rates vary among English NHS trusts. Design Cohort study using patient level data from hospital episode statistics. Setting English NHS trusts. Participants Adult women who had breast conserving surgery between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2008. Main outcome measure Reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery within 3 months, adjusted using logistic regression for tumour type, age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic deprivation. Tumours were grouped by whether a carcinoma in situ component was coded at the time of the primary breast conserving surgery. Results 55 297 women had primary breast conserving surgery in 156 NHS trusts during the three year period. 11 032 (20.0%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 20.3%) women had at least one reoperation. 10 212 (18.5%, 18.2% to 18.8%) had one reoperation only; of these, 5943 (10.7%, 10.5% to 11.0%) had another breast conserving procedure and 4269 (7.7%, 7.5% to 7.9%) had a mastectomy. Of the 45 793 women with isolated invasive disease, 8229 (18.0%) had at least one reoperation. In comparison, 2803 (29.5%) of the 9504 women with carcinoma in situ had at least one reoperation (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.0). Substantial differences were found in the adjusted reoperation rates among the NHS trusts (10th and 90th centiles 12.2% and 30.2%). Conclusion: One in five women who had breast conserving surgery in England had a reoperation. Reoperation was nearly twice as likely when the tumour had a carcinoma in situ component coded. Women should be informed of this reoperation risk when deciding on the type of surgical treatment of their breast cancer.

[1]  H. Feigelson,et al.  Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. , 2012, JAMA.

[2]  P. Westenend,et al.  Re-resection rates after breast-conserving surgery as a performance indicator: introduction of a case-mix model to allow comparison between Dutch hospitals. , 2011, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[3]  J. van der Meulen,et al.  Identifying co‐morbidity in surgical patients using administrative data with the Royal College of Surgeons Charlson Score , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[4]  T. Yau,et al.  Presence of an in situ component is associated with reduced biological aggressiveness of size-matched invasive breast cancer , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  S. Pinder,et al.  Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[6]  A. Lin,et al.  Impact of initial surgical margins and residual cancer upon re-excision on outcome of patients with localized breast cancer. , 2009, American journal of surgery.

[7]  Stephen P Povoski,et al.  Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[8]  R. Pleijhuis,et al.  Obtaining Adequate Surgical Margins in Breast-Conserving Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Current Modalities and Future Directions , 2009, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[9]  A. Munshi,et al.  Factors influencing cosmetic outcome in breast conservation. , 2009, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[10]  M. Ziol,et al.  Prevalence and predictive factors for the detection of carcinoma in cavity margin performed at the time of breast lumpectomy , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[11]  D. Rew.  The challenges of success. , 2009, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  M. Bani,et al.  Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy. , 2009, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[13]  K. Boachie‐Adjei,et al.  Do additional shaved margins at the time of lumpectomy eliminate the need for re-excision? , 2008, American journal of surgery.

[14]  Michele A Gadd,et al.  Outcomes of multiple wire localization for larger breast cancers: when can mastectomy be avoided? , 2008, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[15]  Tim Straughan,et al.  NHS Information Centre , 2008 .

[16]  R. Henry-Tillman,et al.  Association of Clinical and Pathologic Variables with Lumpectomy Surgical Margin Status after Preoperative Diagnosis or Excisional Biopsy of Invasive Breast Cancer , 2008 .

[17]  R. Jeevan,et al.  First Annual Report of the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit , 2008 .

[18]  M. Wallis,et al.  Mammographic bi-dimensional product: a powerful predictor of successful excision of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[19]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. , 2006, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[20]  K. Horst,et al.  Association of Clinical and Pathologic Variables with Lumpectomy Surgical Margin Status after Preoperative Diagnosis or Excisional Biopsy of Invasive Breast Cancer , 2007, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[21]  S. Narod,et al.  The Role of Reexcision for Positive Margins in Optimizing Local Disease Control After Breast‐Conserving Surgery for Cancer , 2006, The breast journal.

[22]  I. Bleiweiss,et al.  The Consequence of Multiple Re-Excisions to Obtain Clear Lumpectomy Margins in Breast Cancer Patients , 2005, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[23]  R. Given-Wilson,et al.  Increasing the diagnosis of multifocal primary breast cancer by the use of bilateral whole-breast ultrasound. , 2005, Clinical radiology.

[24]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  C. Dibben,et al.  The English indices of deprivation 2004 , 2011 .

[26]  R. Simmons,et al.  Factors Associated With Residual Breast Cancer After Re-excision for Close or Positive Margins , 2004, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[27]  B. E. F. Isher,et al.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. , 2002 .

[28]  M. Levine,et al.  Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: mastectomy or lumpectomy? The choice of operation for clinical stages I and II breast cancer (summary of the 2002 update). , 2002, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[29]  A. Hanlon,et al.  Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[30]  R. Collins,et al.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease Part 2, short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context , 1990, The Lancet.

[31]  R. Collins,et al.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease Part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias , 1990, The Lancet.

[32]  C. Chant,et al.  Early and locally Advanced Breast cancer , 2022 .