Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Association of regional intensity of ductal carcinoma in situ treatment with likelihood of breast preservation

  • Rinaa S. Punglia(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Angel M. Cronin
    ,
  • Hajime Uno
    ,
  • Natasha K. Stout
    ,
  • Elissa M. Ozanne
    ,
  • Caprice C. Greenberg
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Harvard University
    ,
  • Dartmouth College
    ,
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
    ,
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Large regional variation exists in the use of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Although patients who do not receive initial radiotherapy for DCIS are candidates for subsequent BCS if they experience a second breast event, many undergo mastectomy instead. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether regional practice patterns of radiotherapy for DCIS affect the use of mastectomy in these patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of population-based databases (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] and SEER-Medicare). Data were obtained for 2679 women in SEER with a diagnosis of DCIS between 1990 and 2011 and for 757 women in SEER-Medicare with a DCIS diagnosis between 1991 and 2009 who had not undergone radiotherapy for DCIS and experienced a subsequent breast cancer or DCIS diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Treatment intensity for primary DCIS (high, medium, low), as defined by separating health service areas (HSAs) into 3 clusters based on radiotherapy use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mastectomy vs BCS at a second breast event defined as DCIS recurrence or new invasive cancer. RESULTS: The median (SD) ages of the participants was 64 (13) years for the 2679 SEER population and 79 (6) years for the SEER-Medicare cohort. Residence in an HSA characterized by greater radiotherapy use for DCIS increased the likelihood of receiving mastectomy vs BCS at a subsequent breast event, even among women who had not previously received radiotherapy for DCIS. Adjusted odds ratios for receiving mastectomy were 1.43 (95% CI, 1.10-1.85) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.27-2.84) in SEER and SEER-Medicare databases, respectively, among women residing in an HSA with the greatest radiotherapy use vs the least, corresponding to an adjusted increase from 40.8% to 49.6%, and from 38.6% to 54.5%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Areas with more radiotherapy use for DCIS had increased use of mastectomy at the time of a second breast event even among patients eligible for breast conservation. This association suggests that physician-related factors are affecting the likelihood of breast preservation.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 101-104 (4 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

JAMA Oncology (Volume 3, Issue 1)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/01/2017

Publication status

Published - 01/01/2017

ISSN

2374-2437

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85013116215
  • PubMed: 27442038

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.13
Fractional count
7
Fractional count
0.88
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
24
Mentions
1
Citation count
3

Funding Details

Disclaimer: This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (http://www.seer.cancer.gov) Research Data (1973-2012), National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, and the linked SEER-Medicare databases. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors. Additional Contributions: Patient advocates Christine Tannous, PhD, and Sandra Finestone, PhD (compensation provided), and colleague Gregory Abel, MD, MPH (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) (no compensation provided), offered important insights regarding our analysis and findings. Drs Tannous and Finestone received financial compensation; Dr Abel did not. We acknowledge the efforts of the National Cancer Institute; the Office of Research, Development, and Information, Centers for Medicare & and Medicaid Services; Information Management Services, Inc; and the SEER Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database.
FundersFunding numbers
Coordinating Centers
-
NCI
-
CMS
-