Background: Treatment for early-stage breast cancer has evolved significantly in recent years. Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) has been shown to offer equivalent survival compared to traditional mastectomy. However, there is marked variation in the performance of BCT which may not reflect clinical appropriateness or patient preference. Little is known about the factors related to variation in BCT performance in older women with early-stage breast cancer.
Methods: Retrospective claims analysis of 1,512 Medicare patients using part-A data for the years 1992 to 1993, with additional explicit chart review. A clinical algorithm was developed to categorize patients according to their candidacy for BCT and compare this to their treatment. Demographic, clinical, and geographic variables were included in the model.
Results: The overall BCT rate in Virginia was 20%, with marked variation among providers of all types. BCT rates ranged from 0% to 44% among hospitals caring for more than 12 cases per year. Twenty-six percent of patients considered good candidates for BCT by current guidelines received this option. Large urban hospitals had significantly higher rates of BCT than smaller hospitals, regardless of the presence of radiation oncology capability. Distance from radiation oncology facilities was a factor in low BCT rates of rural populations, but low BCT rates also were present even in facilities with access to radiation oncology services.
Conclusions: These data present a detailed analysis of the patterns of BCT for Virginia Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer. Clinical contraindications to BCT for confirmed early-stage disease were uncommon. Despite similar patient profiles and hospital-reported range of cancer services, marked variation in BCT rates exists. A large number of patients chose traditional mastectomy over BCT due to fears of radiation, but few received radiation oncology consultation. BCT rates were highest in hospitals with radiation oncology facilities on grounds; hospitals with facilities nearby had rates similar to those without access to radiation facilities. Patient preferences are documented poorly. This study provides further evidence that many women are receiving BCT in patterns that may not reflect clinical appropriateness for BCT nor access to necessary facilities.