Core needle biopsy rate for new cancer diagnosis in an interdisciplinary breast center: evaluation of quality of care 2007-2008.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of minimally invasive biopsy for diagnosis of breast cancer at an interdisciplinary breast center. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous core needle biopsy (CNB) is optimal for minimizing surgery for the diagnosis of benign and malignant lesions of the breast while preserving surgery for definitive resection. Core needle biopsy increases patient satisfaction and reduces the cost of diagnosis and treatment. Despite the endorsement of CNB by many professional organizations, the literature documents underutilization. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained. An audit of a single institution's prospectively maintained cancer databases was performed for all breast cancers diagnosed in 2007 and 2008. Methods of diagnosis included image-guided and freehand-guided CNB, image-guided vacuum assisted needle biopsy, image-guided fine needle aspiration, punch biopsy, and open surgical biopsy. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty new breast cancers were diagnosed in 2007 and 2008. Malignancy was diagnosed by minimally invasive techniques in 350/360 (97%) cancers. CONCLUSION: A very high rate of accurate tissue diagnosis of breast cancer by minimally invasive techniques is achievable.

A community breast center report card determined by participation in the national quality measures for breast centers program.

Measurement of quality indicators and peer comparison has been demonstrated to improve quality of care. The goal of this study was to determine whether a community breast center, in collaboration with the National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCBC), could voluntarily audit the quality of breast cancer care, confidentially transmit quality information to the NCBC, and receive peer performance comparisons. Quality indicator metrics from consecutive breast cancer patients undergoing care at a community interdisciplinary breast center were entered into a prospective database of quality measures that were defined by the NCBC. Retrospective review of patients from 2004 to 2006 was performed and subsequent quality indicator data was submitted electronically to the NCBC National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC(TM) ) program. The percentage of new cancer diagnoses made by needle biopsy techniques was 94%, 95% and 96% from 2004 to 2006. Sentinel lymph node utilization in eligible patients was 93%, 96% and 91% from 2004 to 2006 and the immediate intraoperative pathologic frozen section false negative rate of the sentinel lymph node was 6.5%, 4.7% and 4%. Chart documentation of "patient participation in shared decision making for breast conserving therapy versus mastectomy" improved from 74% to 99% (p<0.05) from 2004 to 2006. Adjuvant systemic treatment for stage 2 breast cancer occurred in 76%, 89% and 77% of patients from 2004 to 2006. Neutropenia requiring hospital admission occurred in no patients in 2004 but in 4.8% and 2.9% in 2005 and 2006. The re-excision lumpectomy rates for stage 0, 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer patients from 2004 to 2006 was 14.2%, 22% and 24.8%. Quality indicator data was submitted to the NQMBC(TM) with successful confidential receipt of peer performance comparisons. Voluntary interdisciplinary institutional audits of breast cancer quality can be successfully submitted to the NQMBC(TM) with confidential peer performance comparison.

Perioperative quality metrics for one step breast cancer surgery: a patient-centered approach.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered care is recommended by the Institute of Medicine to build a better healthcare system. The aim of this study was to audit patient-centered quality measures (QM) to create a breast center report card that could be provided to patients for education and informed consent. METHODS: An IRB approved retrospective review of 695 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer was conducted to audit the components of one step surgery and other QM. RESULTS: The intraoperative sensitivity to detect node positive patients was 25% (2/8), 27% (9/34), and 87% (68/78) for pN0(i+), pN1mi, pN1 patients, respectively. The re-excision lumpectomy rate was 15% (72/471) and the one step surgery success rate, which included lumpectomy and mastectomy patients, was 86% (598/695). Patient self-assessment of "very good to excellent" cosmesis and pain control were 77% (103/134) and 83% (60/72). Local recurrence rate was 2% (12/695) at a mean 3.1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The components of care that contribute to a patient-centered assessment of breast cancer surgery are measurable. "Bundling" of QM creates a perioperative report card that aids patients' informed consent and provides a framework for future comparative effectiveness studies.

Local and paravertebral block anesthesia for outpatient elective breast cancer surgery.

Most breast cancer operations in the United States are performed with the patient given general anesthesia. We retrospectively reviewed our prospective breast cancer database to determine the percentage of patients who underwent breast cancer operations with either local or paravertebral block regional anesthesia from January 1 through June 30, 2008. Fifty-two of 70 patients (74%) were able to undergo breast cancer surgery with local or paravertebral block regional anesthesia. Operations included mastectomy, full axillary dissections, and expander or implant reconstruction. There were no conversions to general anesthesia and no unplanned overnight admissions. Only 5 of 52 patients (10%) undergoing surgery with local or paravertebral block regional anesthesia developed postoperative nausea or vomiting. We conclude that most elective outpatient breast cancer surgery operations can be performed with the patients given local or regional anesthesia.

A quality review of the timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in an integrated breast center.

BACKGROUND: The National Consortium of Breast Centers defines "quality" of breast cancer care as "accurate evaluation and appropriate services ... in a timely manner." We sought to determine timeliness of care and relationship to patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: The electronic medical records of breast cancer patients seen at a breast center from 2004 through 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Dates of patient service were audited. A postal survey was then conducted to determine patient satisfaction with timeliness. RESULTS: Median time interval in business days from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnostic evaluation and core needle biopsy was 6 days. Median time intervals from core needle biopsy to core needle biopsy pathology report and then subsequent surgical consultation and breast cancer operation were 1, 3, and 7 days, respectively. Breast MRI, systemic imaging, plastic surgery consultation, type of surgery, and patient choice prolonged time to treatment. More than 90% of breast cancer patients who responded to our postal survey had their expectations met or exceeded for the dates of service provided for diagnostic evaluation and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of timeliness as a quality indicator for breast cancer care is complex and requires an assessment of whether patient expectations were met for dates of service. Factors that prolong time to treatment, such as additional imaging, should be considered for risk adjustment for peer performance comparison and compliance with published timeliness target goals.