Key words immediate reconstruction - certified breast cancer centres - multilevel analysis -
minimum numbers
Schlüsselwörter direkte Rekonstruktion - zertifizierte Brustkrebszentren - Mehrebenenanalyse - Mindestmengen
Introduction
About one third of the estimated 72 000 women diagnosed in Germany for the first time
with breast cancer each year [1 ], [2 ] undergo a mastectomy which may be followed by a direct (immediate) reconstruction
(DR) to restore the body image. The decision for a direct or a delayed reconstruction
is in principle dependent on the patientʼs situation [3 ]. Studies point to positive emotional effects of the DR for the patient, however
as yet there are no (randomised) trials [4 ], [5 ], [6 ]. Begum et al. in a qualitative study identified, among others, misgivings regarding
body image and the burden of only a single operation as the expressed reason for a
DR from the patientʼs side [7 ]. Among others, a delayed onset of postoperative therapy may be a reason against
DR [8 ], [9 ], [10 ], [11 ], [12 ], [13 ]. In the case of a planned radiotherapy subsequent to the mastectomy, for example,
a later reconstruction with autologous tissue may be undertaken. The proportion of
patients receiving a DR is increasing, this is especially evident in USA and Canada
[9 ], [14 ].
According to the German S3 guidelines, all patients should be informed about the possibilities
for a primary or secondary reconstruction [3 ]. The requirements for certification by the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft
[DKG]) and the German Society for Senology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie [DGS])
call for comprehensive counselling of the patients by the treating centres [15 ]. This is based on studies that confirm for those patients who actively decide for
a secondary reconstruction there is often a rather unclarified patient situation which
can be recognised in the decision-making background. This is possibly also accompanied
by anxiety which then leads to the decision against a direct reconstruction [16 ]. As demonstrated by Fernandez-Delgado et al. [4 ] in a study on satisfaction with and the mental consequences of a direct reconstruction,
many women who have experienced other treatments would retrospectively have preferred
the direct reconstruction (87.27 % of those who underwent later reconstruction). The
S3 guidelines recommend that without exception the patient should be informed about
all advantages and disadvantages with regard to reconstruction options and that the
patientʼs subsequent decision as well as the actually performed reconstruction be
documented. There is no target value for the number of reconstructions or requirements
with regard to the time point of the reconstruction [2 ], [15 ].
Foreign studies have reported that the decision for or against a DR is not only related
to clinical factors but also to other characteristics of the patient and that there
are, in part, large differences between the treating institutions. Thus, a British
study came to the conclusion that the performance of a DR varies considerably between
hospitals and that the operation is more frequent among white women and women from
more affluent districts [17 ]. Data from the USA reveal, among others, a higher rate of DR for younger or privately
insured women, those from urban residential areas and from residential areas with
higher average household incomes or higher average levels of education as well as
patients who are treated in teaching hospitals [18 ], [19 ], [20 ]. In Australia, besides the clinical features, among others a higher social status,
a private health insurance and surgeons with a higher number of cases are predictors
for receiving a DR [21 ].
Finally, an investigation in the USA presented by Hershman et al. in 2012 demonstrated
associations between the performance of a DR and the hospital and patient characteristics.
Accordingly, in a multivariate model, Afro-American, older, or married women, women
living in rural districts and women more affected by comorbidities underwent a DR
less frequently. Privately and Medicare insured women (as opposed to self-payers)
received a DR more often as did patients in hospitals with a higher yearly number
of mastectomies and higher number of mastectomies per surgeon and those treated in
hospitals with a larger number of beds [22 ].
In spite of the high academic interest in this topic, as yet no such studies have
been carried out in Germany. Our contribution supplements the predictors considered
in the study of Hershman et al. with information regarding reconstruction and self-help
groups, contact to self-help groups and further patient characteristics (ASA, education,
grading, uni-/bilateral findings). With the help of survey data from certified breast
cancer centres, we have investigated which factors are associated with the performance
of DR in Germany.
Materials and Methods
Data acquisition
The data evaluated in this study originated from a patient questionnaire coupled with
a survey of centres regarding structural and procedural characteristics (so-called
“key informant survey”) ([Fig. 1 ]). The surveys and the data protection concept were approved by the Ethics Commission
of the medical faculty of Cologne University. The data were supplemented by population
figures of the towns or cities in which the participating hospitals were located [23 ].
Fig. 1 Data sources.
Patient survey
The patient data used in this contribution were collected between March and November
2010 by means of a questionnaire sent by post to women who had previously been inpatients
in breast cancer centres certified according to the criteria of DKG and DGS [24 ]. During the acquisition period the agreement declarations of all their patients
who had previously been informed about the survey (inclusion criteria: operation during
the hospital stay, primary malignant finding, ICD code of the confirmed diagnosis
C50.x or D05.x) together with the clinical characteristics of the respective patients
were submitted weekly to the institution performing the survey. The survey was oriented
on the Total Design Method according to Dillman [25 ] with two written reminders. We used the Cologne Patient Questionnaire for Breast
Cancer (CPQ-BC), which assesses key dimensions of inpatient care and has been in use
in a practically identical version since 2006, also in centres certified according
to the requirements of the province North Rhine-Westphalia [26 ].
Key informant survey
The key informant survey, from which information on the hospital characteristics originate
was also performed in the breast cancer centres certified according to the criteria
of DKG and DGS [27 ]. The aim of the survey performed in 2011 was to investigate, beside the already
acquired patient perspectives, also perspectives of the health-care supplier and thus
to enable comparisons to be made of the structures and processes in the breast cancer
centres. The questionnaire contains items on the implementation status of the centre
concept as well as structural characteristics of the hospital. They are mostly factual
questions. The person in the breast centre to whom the questionnaire was addressed
(mostly the coordinator or head of the centre) was requested to consult his/her colleagues
if he/she was unable to answer individual questions. This voluntary survey was also
performed following the Total Design Method according to Dillman (1978).
Variables
All variables used in the analysis were categorised when they were not already available
as categorical variables. The data on the dependent variable “direct reconstruction”
(yes/no) were obtained from the answers on the type of operation in the clinical characteristics
of the patient. The age of the patient was considered as a continuous variable for
the bivariate analysis and was categorised into six classes (18–39, 40–49, 50–59,
60–69, 70–79 and over 80 years) for the regression model. The data on health insurance
were summarised into three groups (statutory insurance, private insurance, and statutory
insurance with additional private insurance). The variable cohabitation status has
two response traits (living together with spouse or partner: yes, no). The highest
school leaving certificate was represented with four categories (no leaving certificate,
junior school certificate, secondary school certificate, technical college/high school
certificate). From the data on tumour size, lymph node attack and metastases (TNM
classification) taken from the patientʼs clinical findings, the staging according
to UICC [28 ] was deduced with five categories (stage 0 to IV). The grading (I, II, III) taken
from the clinical findings was treated in unchanged form as a categorical variable.
The five categories of the ASA classification [29 ] to assess the general physical condition were summarized into three categories (1,
2, 3–5) for the regression model, but not for the bivariate analysis. The information
on the afflicted breast was recoded into one variable with two categories (both sides,
only one side affected). To check the relationship of the information about the reconstruction
with the dependent variables, the following items were used: “to what extent did the
physician in the hospital give you information about the following topics: on removal
of the breast (mastectomy); about possibilities for reconstruction of the breast”.
The five answer categories in the questionnaire ranged from “no information” to “very
much information”. Information about self-help groups and contact to self-help groups
were recorded as variables on the basis of the following questions in the patient
questionnaire: “Did anyone in the hospital inform you about self-help groups?”; “Did
you during your hospital stay come into contact with self-help groups?” (response
format: yes, no).
From the key informant survey, details about the hospital characteristics were retrieved.
The teaching status of the hospital was represented with a dichotomous variable (yes,
no). The number of operations of primary cases per year was categorised into four
groups (up to 100, 101–200, 201–300, more than 300). The ratio of the number of main
surgeons and the number of operations on primary breast cancers formed the basis for
the variable operations per surgeon which encompassed the averaged experience of the
surgeons at those locations. The determined ratio of the hospitals were categorised
into “less than 50”, “50 to 99” and “100 or more” operations per year. To determine
the urbanity of the hospital location, the numbers of residents in the communities
of the participating hospitals were acquired. The numbers were taken from the municipal
directories of the Federal Statistical Office on the basis of the 2011 census [22 ] and grouped into four characteristics (small towns [< 20 000 population {pop}],
medium-sized towns/cities [20 000 to 100 000 pop], large cities [> 100 000 to 1 000 000
pop] and million people cities [> 1 000 000 pop]).
Statistical analysis
To analyse the relationships between the variables, a bivariate correlation analysis
was undertaken as the first step. Variables that did not reveal any significant relationships
with DR were excluded from further analyses. As prerequisite for the regression analysis
the remaining variables were subjected to a multicolinearity test by a variance inflation
factor (VIF) in order to exclude multicollinearity.
In a second step logistic multilevel models with DR as dependent variable were estimated.
The multilevel analysis is an appropriate analytical method for the present hierarchical
data structure (patients belonging to different hospitals). We used the full maximum likelihood estimation procedure. The maximum
likelihood method (ML) is one of the most frequently used methods in multilevel analyses
and, especially for large samples, is robust against minor violations of the prerequisites
[30 ].
At first a null model was calculated in which, apart from the dependent variable,
no other factors were included. From the variance component determined in this model
the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) can be calculated with the help of the
formula proposed by Snijders and Bosker for hierarchical logistic regression models
[31 ]. In a first model the independent variables at the patient level (level 1) were
included and in a second model the independent variables at the hospital level (level
2) were added. All variables were taken uncentred into the model. Subsequently, as
a measure of variance explanation, R2
2 was calculated on the basis of the ICC of model 2. The larger R2
2 is, the more can the variance in the dependent variable be explained by the model.
No imputations were undertaken for missing values. Cases with missing values in the
dependent variables were excluded from the analyses. In order to avoid listwise deletion
in the regression models, the models included dummy variables for missing values,
for the sake of parsimonity these are not represented in the results. The descriptive
and bivariate analyses were done with the help of the statistical software IBM SPSS
Version 22. Calculations on the multilevel analysis were done with HLM 6.05.
Results
Sample
160 of the 251 of at that time certified operation locations (from 128 of 195 certified
breast cancer centres) participated in the patient questionnaire. The locations that
did not participate did not differ from the participating ones with regard to ownership,
teaching status and case numbers [32 ]. 1128 of 9354 patients enrolled by the hospitals (12 %) refused to participate.
7301 of the 8226 patients who agreed to participate and to whom the questionnaire
was sent by post returned the completed questionnaire (88.76 %) [24 ]. 111 of 160 locations participating in the patient survey also took part in the
key informant survey (69.4 %). In this survey again there were no significant differences
between the participating and the non-participating hospitals with regard to ownership,
size and teaching status [32 ]. 5024 patients who participated in the survey were treated in these 111 hospitals.
1219 of the 5024 (24.3 %) underwent a mastectomy. The 19 male patients were excluded
as also were 13 questionnaires with missing information as to gender. The remaining
1187 were treated at a total of 107 surgical locations and served as the sample for
the subsequent analyses.
Descriptive results – differences in patient characteristics
Of the 1187 patients who underwent mastectomies, 249 received a DR (21.0 %). [Table 1 ] to [3 ] show the frequency distributions of patient characteristics for all the mastectomy
patients and separately for those who underwent a DR. [Table 4 ] shows the frequency distributions for the hospital characteristics of all 107 participating
surgical locations.
Table 1 Distribution of sociodemographic characteristics of the patients and the rates of
direct reconstruction.
Characteristic
Number
Proportion in sample (%)
Number of direct reconstructions
Rate of direct reconstructions (%)
Age
14
1.2
7
50.0
52
4.4
23
44.2
201
17.1
78
38.8
253
21.6
71
28.1
286
24.4
49
17.1
268
22.8
17
6.3
99
8.4
1
1.0
14
Insurance status
973
83.7
190
19.5
101
8.7
29
28.7
89
7.7
28
31.5
24
Partner/spouse
788
67.4
190
24.1
381
32.6
58
15.2
18
School education
32
2.8
4
12.5
518
45.9
61
11.8
335
29.7
97
29.0
244
21.6
76
31.1
58
Total
1 187
249
21.0
Table 2 Distribution of patient characteristics regarding findings and severity of disease
as well as rates of direct reconstruction.
Characteristic
Number
Proportion in the sample (%)
Number of direct reconstructions
Rate of direct reconstructions (%)
Stage (UICC)
96
9.3
37
38.5
224
21.7
80
35.7
385
37.3
69
17.9
253
24.5
30
11.9
74
7.2
5
6.8
155
Grading
97
8.7
23
23.7
644
57.7
126
19.6
375
33.6
79
21.1
71
ASA classification
433
37.0
128
29.6
544
46.5
103
18.9
191
16.3
11
5.8
2
0.2
0
0.0
1
0.1
0
0.0
16
Bilaterally affected breast
51
4.3
9
17.6
1 134
95.7
239
21.1
2
Table 3 Distribution of patient characteristics regarding information about reconstruction
as well as information on and contact with self-help groups and rates of direct reconstruction.
Characteristic
Number
Proportion in the sample (%)
Number of direct reconstructions
Rate of direct reconstructions (%)
Information about reconstruction
92
10.0
3
3.3
64
6.9
6
9.4
133
14.4
30
22.6
192
20.8
54
28.1
442
47.9
131
29.6
264
Information about self-help groups
580
59.0
136
23.4
403
41.0
80
19.9
204
Contact with self-help groups
82
8.7
15
18.3
857
91.3
179
20.9
248
Table 4 Hospital characteristics: structures, processes and urbanity.
Nature of the characteristic
Number (n = 107)
Valid (%)
Teaching hospital
91
85.0
16
15.0
0
Operations per year
13
12.4
50
47.6
30
28.6
7
6.7
5
4.8
2
Surgeon case numbers (operations per year)
25
23.8
70
66.7
10
9.5
2
Urbanity of hospital location (population)
9
8.4
49
45.8
42
39.3
7
6.5
0
55.6 % of all mastectomy patients were 60 or more years old, in the bivariate analysis
the rate of patients undergoing direct reconstruction declines with increasing age.
Among those with private insurance, 31.5 % underwent a DR, for those with statutory
insurance only, the corresponding rate was 19.5 %. In bivariate analysis the DR rate
for patients living alone was 15.2 %, for those living with a partner it was 24.1 %.
Among patients with secondary school leaving certificates and those with high school
leaving certificates, the DR rate was almost three times higher than those for patients
with junior school or no leaving certificates. In bivariate analysis the DR rate decreased
with increasing stage and was highest with 29.6 % for patients with ASA 1.
The DR rate was higher for those patients who reported to have received more information
than among those who reported to have received little or no information. 59 % of all
mastectomy patients received information about self-help groups. For 8.7 % of the
patients contact to a self-help group was realised during the hospital stay. The reconstruction
rate of those who had contact to self-help groups was 18.3 %, and thus somewhat lower
in bivariate analysis than that for those who had no contact.
Descriptive results – differences in hospital characteristics
Of the 107 hospitals 85 % were teaching hospitals. In most of the hospitals between
101 and 200 primary cases were operated each year, 13 hospitals treated less than
100 cases per year. The number of operations per senior surgeon per year was between
50 and 99 in two thirds of the hospitals, in 25 hospitals it was less than 50 operations
per surgeon and in 10 hospitals it was 100 or more. The large majority of the hospitals
were located in towns or cities with populations of 20 000 to 100 000 residents, 42
hospitals are in large city locations, 9 in small towns and 7 in Germanyʼs million
people cities.
Correlations with patient characteristics
[Table 5 ] shows the relationships between the independent variables at the patient level and
the dependent variables. For young age, statutory health insurance with additional
private insurance, private health insurance (each in comparison with statutory health
insurance), living in a partnership, higher educational level and receiving more information
about breast reconstruction, significantly positive relationships with receiving a
DR were found. Higher stages and higher ASA classifications had significant negative
correlations with DR. It is seen that obtaining information about self-help groups
and contact to self-help groups are not significantly associated with DR. Thus, these
variables were excluded from the further analyses. The same is true for the variable
uni- or bilateral findings. Correlation analyses of the remaining independent variables
among each other did not reveal any relationships that could be considered as critically
high (> 0.6) (data not shown). Also the VIF values did not provide any indication
for multicollinearity.
Table 5 Correlations between patient characteristics and undergoing direct reconstruction.
Variables
Performance of a direct reconstruction
significant at * level 0.05, ** level 0.01
Age
0.341** (0.000)
Insurance status
− 0.076** (0.009)
0.058* (0.046)
0.073* (0.020)
− 0.045 (0.124)
(Marital) partnership
0.102** (0.000)
School education
0.212** (0.000)
Stage (UICC)
− 0.251** (0.000)
Grading
0.000 (0.992)
ASA classification
− 0.201** (0.000)
Bilaterally affected breast
− 0.017 (0.556)
Information about reconstruction
0.172** (0.000)
Information about self-help groups
0.043 (0.180)
Contact to self-help groups
− 0.018 (0.579)
Results of the multilevel analysis – differences between the hospitals
Due to the absence of data about case numbers, two hospitals were excluded from the
further analysis so that in total 1165 patients from 105 hospitals were taken into
consideration in the multilevel analysis. [Table 6 ] shows the results of the logistic multilevel analysis. In the null model the ICC
amounted to 0.19. A relatively large portion of the variance in the dependent variables
can thus be attributed to differences between the hospitals. In model 1 statistically
significant relationships with DR are seen for young age, private insurance status
(compared to statutory insurance), secondary school leaving certificate (compared
to junior school leaving certificate), lower stage and more information about reconstruction.
This was not the case with regard to living with a partner and the general health
condition (ASA).
Table 6 Results of the multilevel analysis – relationships between the probability for receiving
a direct reconstruction and the characteristic at the patient and hospital levels.
Model 1
Model 2
Statistically significant results are printed in bold type.
Intercept
0.16 (0.09; 0.29)
0.12 (0.05; 0.30)
Patient level (n = 1 165)
Age (ref.: 60–69 years)
4.36 (2.09; 9.09)
4.45 (2.12; 9.32)
1.07 (0.25; 4.51)
1.01 (0.24; 4.27)
1.95 (1.18; 3.24)
1.97 (1.18; 3.28)
0.39 (0.20; 0.78)
0.38 (0.19; 0.77)
0,07 (0,01; 0,57)
0,07 (0,01; 0,56)
Insurance status (ref.: statutory insurance only)
1.01 (0.55; 1.87)
0.92 (0.49; 1.72)
2,07 (1,07; 3,99)
1,97 (1,01; 3,81)
(Marital) partnership (ref.: yes)
0.98 (0.65; 1.49)
0.96 (0.63; 1.46)
School education (ref.: junior school leaving certificate)
0.97 (0.24; 3.91)
1.05 (0.26; 4.24)
1.58 (1.00; 2.48)
1.62 (1.02; 2.56)
1.39 (0.83; 2.35)
1.36 (0.81; 2.30)
stage (UICC) (ref.: stage II)
3.08 (1.68; 5.65)
3.07 (1.67 (5.65)
2.25 (1.41; 3.59)
2.26 (1.41; 3.61)
0.46 (0.26; 0.79)
0.45 (0.26; 0.78)
0.44 (0.15; 1.29)
0.42 (0.14; 1.23)
ASA classification (ref.: ASA 2)
0.90 (0.59; 1.37)
0.86 (0.56; 1.31)
0,55 (0,24; 1,26)
0.55 (0.24; 1.26)
Information about reconstruction (ref.: very much information)
0.18 (0.05; 0.62)
0.17 (0.05; 0.62)
0.23 (0.09; 0.63)
0.23 (0.08; 0.64)
0.56 (0.32; 0.97)
0.56 (0.32; 0.98)
0.81 (0.51; 1.28)
0.82 (0.51; 1.30)
Hospital level (n = 105)
Teaching hospital (ref.: no)
0.93 (0.45; 1.93)
Operations per year (ref.: 101–200)
1.28 (0.49; 3.38)
2.09 (1.08; 4.04)
2.81 (1.04; 7.59)
Surgeonʼs case number (ref.: 50–99 OPs per year)
1.37 (0.65; 2.89)
0.44 (0.15; 1.29)
Hospital location according to urbanity (ref.: 20 000–100 000 pop)
0.47 (0.14; 1.64)
1.05 (0.58; 1.88)
1.79 (0.62; 5.16)
ICC (null model 0.195)
0.201
0.169
R2
2
0.131
Hospital characteristics are included in model 2 in order to determine possible relationships
between the hospital characteristics with receiving a DR concomitantly to relationships
at the patient level. All significant relationships in model 1 were also found in
model 2. Among the newly included variables a significant result is seen for the two
categories concerning the number of operated breast cancer patients in the hospital.
For patients in hospitals with over 200 up to 300 operations per year there is an
approximately two-fold higher chance to receive a DR in comparison to the reference
group (101–200 operations). For patients in hospitals with more than 300 operations
the probability is substantially higher. There are no significant relationships for
teaching status of the hospital, the surgeonʼs yearly case numbers and the urbanity
of the hospitalʼs location. The degree of variance explanation by the factors included
in model 2 (R2
2 ) amounted to 0.131.
Discussion
A direct reconstruction after a mastectomy is significantly more frequently undertaken
in Germany for women with a first diagnosis of breast cancer for younger, privately
insured and less severely ill patients (lower stage). In addition, patients with secondary
school leaving certificates receive a DR significantly more often than those with
junior school leaving certificates. This is not statistically significant for patients
with high school leaving certificates compared to those with junior school leaving
certificates. These results essentially agree with those of the study by Hershman
and colleagues [22 ] as well as those of older studies from the USA on DR and should be viewed against
the background of other studies in which the performance of a reconstruction after
mastectomy was associated not only with severity of disease and age [8 ], [33 ], [34 ], [35 ], [36 ], [37 ], but also, for example, with education [8 ], [38 ] and insurance status [35 ], [36 ] and thus is socially unequally distributed. Comparisons between different countries,
however, are of limited use due to differences in the insurance and education systems.
No relationships were found in the multivariable model for cohabitation status and
ASA classification. An explanation of the age effect could be that older patients,
as assumed by Roder et al. (2013), are more willing to accept a change of their body
image. However, Sisco et al. (2012) observed over the course of time a decreasing
relationship with age which is suggestive of an increasing relevance of body image
also in advanced age. The relationships with insurance status, education and income
point to a differentiated utilisation due to social status and pose the questions
about the equality of health care and a universalistic treatment [39 ] by health-care providers. Similar relationships, by the way, can also be found in
national health-care systems, for example, the Canadian system [14 ].
However, caution is required in the interpretation. The observed differences according
to social status and age may be due to different preferences, also according to social
status and age, for participation in therapeutic decision making. Studies have shown
that better educated and younger patients wish to be involved more in the therapeutic
decision making [40 ], [41 ], which may also be attributed to their higher health literacy [42 ]. Thus, the younger patients and those with higher social status in our study eventually
rather make a claim for primary reconstruction because they are better informed, more
strongly express their wishes and have a desire to be more involved. The performance
of a DR also depends on the preference of the patient for reconstruction with autologous
tissue or a reconstruction using a prosthesis/expander: Whereas the latter operation
is associated with a shorter duration of operation and, with the exception of a planned
radiotherapy, can be done as a DR, reconstruction using autologous tissue is a protracted
process and is thus usually undertaken as a secondary procedure. To date, to the best
of our knowledge, no studies have examined the relationships between receiving a DR
and the, from the patientʼs side, perceived amount of information on reconstruction.
In the present study the performance of a DR is associated with the receipt of a larger
amount of information. This result is suggestive of the major importance of the physician
in the decision-making process [7 ], but cannot be interpreted causally. In future, the relevance of individualised
therapy decisions and a corresponding counselling will increase further [43 ], [44 ]. Against the background of documentation requirements [45 ], in which ultimately the physician is also involved, it should be examined to what
extent resources can be made available for this task. Studies could, by the way, also
show that practically all patients who decided for a DR were retrospectively satisfied
with their decision [46 ] and that especially the younger patients felt the need for a further operation after
mastectomy to improve the cosmetic result [47 ]. In general, it must be taken into consideration that patients may decide, even
after intensive counselling and for personal reasons, against a DR and also a secondary
reconstruction, this must of course be respected.
Among the hospital characteristics merely the number of operations performed annually
was associated with the performance of a DR: patients in hospitals where more than
200 primary cases per year were operated more frequently underwent a DR in comparison
to patients in hospitals where 101–200 patients were operated annually. In analogy
to the results of Hershman et al. (2012) the treatment volume is thus positively related
to the probability of receiving a DR, whereby three other characteristics were also
examined, namely the total number of beds in the hospital, the number of mastectomies
per surgeon and the number of mastectomies per hospital. Relationships with the other
examined characteristics and, in part, characteristics for the performance of DR reported
in the literature such as teaching status [18 ], [22 ], [35 ], [36 ], [37 ], operations per surgeon [22 ] and urbanity [18 ], [19 ], [22 ], [37 ] of the hospitalʼs location could not be detected. This result is not surprising
against the background of the high homogeneity of the investigated hospitals (all
are DKG/DGS certified) and this can be considered as a positive influence of the German
centre structure. Even so, a considerable proportion of variance between the hospitals
in the model remains unexplained and poses the question as to what further factors
play a role here at the hospital level (e.g., culture, qualification, QM). However,
it must be conceded that the variable number of operations per surgeon considers solely
the “main surgeons” and not all surgeons in the numerator and that, especially in
academic teaching hospitals, assistant surgeons may also operate (albeit under the
supervision of an experienced surgeon).
As in many previous studies the results of the analysis of data acquired retrospectively
and in cross-section do not permit any direct causal conclusions to be drawn. On interpretation
of the results it must be considered that they refer to specialised and certified
breast cancer centres and that possibly the observed results may not be transferrable
to less standardised facilities, whereby in Germany the latter are in the meantime
in a clear minority. A comparison with not certified clinics would be interesting
but is not possible on the basis of the present data. Furthermore, the transferability
of results from Germany to other health-care systems is limited because of the reimbursement
of hospital services via case-based flat rates. The authors of a cost-revenue analysis
of direct reconstruction in Germany explain that, in the German diagnosis-related
group (G-DRG) system, emphasis is on reimbursement-based incentives for separate interventions
instead of a cost-covering financing of the direct reconstruction recommended in the
guidelines [48 ]. The present investigation is more precise with regard to the time point of reconstruction
than many of the previous studies because the necessary information was gathered from
the treating hospital personnel and not as is often the case from quarterly claims
data. The data provided by the hospital personnel about the clinical findings offer
the advantages that not only stage but also the ASA classification are available.
American studies, in contrast, usually consider only one of these characteristics.
The response rate from the patient side was remarkably high and also the responses
from key informants were above average. In spite of the comment in the questionnaire
that, in the lack of personal knowledge, if necessary, colleagues should be consulted,
evaluation of the apparently objective key numbers should be treated with caution.
Altogether, previous studies can only be compared with one another and with our results
with limitations due to the differing inclusion criteria and definition of DR.
Implications for practice and research
Implications for practice and research
Even if the demonstrated inequalities in health care appear to be less than those
in other countries there is still potential for improvement of equality in the management
of mastectomy patients in Germany. Whereas the result that those with private insurance
possibly have a better chance to receive a DR, perhaps due to financial incentives,
should animate health-care politics to take appropriate action, the revealed relationship
on the amount of information provided by physicians in hospitals suggests that also
the health-care providers could contribute to a fairer supply. Higher case numbers
are related to a higher probability to receive a DR, which can be interpreted as an
argument in favour of minimum numbers.
Future studies should take the availability of plastic surgeons in the clinics more
strongly into consideration. This was not possible in the present study. Furthermore,
more attention should be paid to the reasons for a decision as well as to the question
of who is to what extent involved in the decision-making process about the reconstruction
time point, for example, by review of the patient records and under consideration
of discussions of the tumour board. Thus, for example, it is not clear if older patients
more frequently decide against a reconstruction or if the surgeons deliberately withhold
information about the option or actively advise against it. In addition, a follow-up
examination should be performed to accompany patients without DR. In this way it could
be analyzed if they have not merely chosen a different time point for reconstruction
or if they have possibly decided not to undergo any reconstruction.
Acknowledgements
We thank the patients and the breast cancer centres for their active involvement in
this study and the AVON company for generous support of the patient survey.
