Advertisement
Research Article| Volume 36, ISSUE 8, P750-755, August 2010

Download started.

Ok

Regional variation in use of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer in England

  • R. Jeevan
    Affiliations
    Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • D.A. Cromwell
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK. Tel.: +44 (0) 20 7869 6608; fax: +44 (0) 20 7869 6644.
    Affiliations
    Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK

    Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • J.P. Browne
    Affiliations
    Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK

    Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland
    Search for articles by this author
  • M. Trivella
    Affiliations
    Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK

    Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • J. Pereira
    Affiliations
    James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Lowestoft Road, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR31 6LA, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • C.M. Caddy
    Affiliations
    Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S5 7AU, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • C. Sheppard
    Affiliations
    Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3LY, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • J.H.P. van der Meulen
    Affiliations
    Clinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, UK

    Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Aims

      English national guidelines recommend that breast reconstruction is made available to women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. We examined the use of immediate reconstruction (IR) across English Cancer Networks, who are responsible for the regional organisation of cancer services and ensuring equitable access to treatment.

      Methods

      We analysed Hospital Episodes Statistics data for all women with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy in the English NHS between April 2006 and February 2009. IR rates were calculated for the 30 Networks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust the rates for patient age, comorbidity, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation.

      Results

      Of 44 837 mastectomy patients, 7375 (16.5%) underwent IR. The IR rate was highest in women under 50 years (32.7%) and lowest in women aged 70 years or over (1.5%), and was lower in women with more comorbidities. Unadjusted IR rates varied from 8.4% to 31.9% among the 30 Networks (p<0.001). Adjusting for their patient characteristics did not appreciably reduce Network-level variation, with adjusted IR rates still ranging from 8.0% to 29.4% (p<0.001). The risk-model also suggested that non-white women and those from more deprived areas were less likely to undergo immediate reconstruction.

      Conclusions

      There is substantial regional variation in immediate reconstruction use in England that is not explained by the characteristics of the local patient population. English Cancer Networks should act to reduce this variation. They should also examine why rates of reconstruction differ between particular patient groups.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Surgical Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Office for National Statistics
        Cancer statistics registrations: registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2006, England.
        (Series MB1, No. 37) ONS, London2008 (Available from:)
        • Jeevan R.
        • Browne J.
        • van der Meulen J.
        • et al.
        First annual report of the national mastectomy and breast reconstruction audit 2008.
        (Ref: 18120107) The NHS Information Centre, Leeds2008 (Available from:)
        • Malata C.M.
        • McIntosh S.A.
        • Purushotham A.D.
        Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for cancer.
        Br J Surg. 2000; 87: 1455-1472
        • National Institute for Clinical Excellence
        Guidance on cancer services. Improving outcomes in breast cancer – manual update.
        NICE, London2002 (Available from:)
        • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
        Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment.
        (Clinical guideline 80) NICE, London2009 (Available from:)
      1. A policy framework for commissioning cancer services: a report by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales.
        The Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales, London1995 (Available from:)
      2. The NHS cancer plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform.
        Department of Health, London2000 (Available from:)
        • Jeevan R.
        • Cromwell D.
        • Browne J.
        • et al.
        Second annual report of the national mastectomy and breast reconstruction audit 2009.
        The NHS Information Centre, Leeds2008 (Available from:)
        • The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care
        Hospital episode statistics (HES).
        The NHS Information Centre, Leeds2009 (Available from:)
        • Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
        Tabular list of the classification of surgical operations and procedures: fourth revision consolidated version.
        0116912952 HMSO, London1990
        • World Health Organisation
        International classification of diseases and related health problems.
        (10th revision)9241544198 WHO, Geneva, Switzerland1992
        • Armitage J.N.
        • van der Meulen J.H.
        On Behalf of the Royal College of Surgeons Co-morbidity Consensus Group. Identifying co-morbidity in surgical patients using administrative data with the Royal College of Surgeons Charlson Score.
        Br J Surg. 2010; 97: 772-781
        • Noble M.
        • Wright G.
        • Dibben C.
        • et al.
        The English indices of deprivation 2004 (revised).
        (ODPM Licence No: 100018986) HMSO, London2004 (Available from:)
        • PbR data Assurance Framework 2007/08
        Findings from the first year of the national clinical coding audit programme.
        Audit Commission, London2008
        • West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit
        Breast Cancer Clinical Outcome Measures project newsletter: issue 5 August 2009.
        WMCIU, Birmingham2009 (Available from:)
        • Adams R.J.
        • Howard N.
        • Tucker G.
        • et al.
        Effects of area deprivation on health risks and outcomes: a multilevel, cross-sectional, Australian population study.
        Int J Public Health. 2009; 54: 183-192
        • Polacek G.N.
        • Ramos M.C.
        • Ferrer R.L.
        Breast cancer disparities and decision-making among US women.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 65: 158-165
        • Greenberg C.C.
        • Schneider E.C.
        • Lipsitz S.R.
        • et al.
        Do variations in provider discussions explain socioeconomic disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction?.
        J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 206: 605-615
        • Alderman A.K.
        • Hawley S.T.
        • Waljee J.
        • et al.
        Correlates of referral practices of general surgeons to plastic surgeons for mastectomy reconstruction.
        Cancer. 2007; 109: 1715-1720
        • Callaghan C.J.
        • Couto E.
        • Kerin M.J.
        • et al.
        Breast reconstruction in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
        Br J Surg. 2002; 89: 335-340
        • Department of Health
        Shared accountability for Cancer Waiting Times – monitoring the two month target from GP referral to treatment for breast cancer – England Quarter 2, 2008/09.
        DH, London2008 (Available from:)