ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Within the statutory health insurance system of the Federal Republic of Germany, a system of quality assurance has been implemented and operationalised through the measurement of quality indicators. For breast surgery, these quality indicators are mainly based on recommendations of the German clinical guideline for screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of breast cancer. The 2018 update of this guideline includes a new chapter on breast cancer in men. The aim of this analysis is to examine whether male and female patients with breast cancer are treated equally where appropriate and recommended by the clinical guideline, as measured by the quality indicators. METHOD: Data of ten quality assurance indicators were analysed, for each indicator separately, stratified by sex and pooled over a 5-year period to gain statistical power. This dataset constitutes the largest data pool of men with surgical interventions for breast neoplasm in Germany. Indicator results were then compared between male and female cases. Additional subgroup analyses were carried out for two quality indicators with substantial outcome difference between male and female cases in order to detect possible differences in the treatment of breast cancer between different medical departments. RESULTS: The database of the ten quality assurance indicators comprised 551,221 patients (546,324 females and 4,897 males) between 2014 and 2018. Pooled data of nine quality indicators (QIs) showed statistically significant outcome differences between male and female cases. In spite of pooling, the male sample size of four QIs was too small to allow for statistically reliable comparisons between male and female patients. Outcome differences in the remaining five QIs may, on the one hand, be explained by anatomical differences and different extent of the surgery, and on the other hand they confirm international data for lower HER2-positivity rates in male breast cancer patients. However, two process indicators, aiming at pretherapeutic biopsy and sentinel lymph node biopsy in invasive breast cancer recommended by the clinical guideline, show substantial differences of more than 6 percentage points between the sexes: although recommended by the clinical guideline, both procedures are carried out less often in male cases. Further analysis regarding the medical departments that recorded the treatment revealed that risk for non-adherence to guideline recommendation was high if treatment took place in non-gynaecological departments. Compared to gynaecological departments, procedures such as pretherapeutic biopsy and sentinel lymph node biopsy were carried out less frequently if cases were documented to be handled by surgery or plastic surgery departments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Analysis of breast surgery quality indicators reveals a lower level of adherence to guideline recommendations for men with breast cancer compared to women in some aspects of the guideline, as measured by statutory quality indicators in breast surgery. Male breast cancer might be a rare disease, but nevertheless, awareness-rising is needed in diagnostics, treatment and interdisciplinarity in order to avoid inequality between the sexes.
