BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant is a better treatment than conventional-dose chemotherapy for women with local/regional or metastatic breast cancer. Subject selection and time-to-treatment biases make definitive comparison impossible. Recent results of randomized trials are contradictory. OBJECTIVE: Determine appropriateness of high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant in women with breast cancer. PANELISTS: Nine breast cancer experts from diverse geographic sites and practice settings. EVIDENCE: Boolean MEDLINE searches of 'breast cancer' and 'chemotherapy' and/or 'blood cell' or 'bone marrow transplants'. PROCESS: We used a modified Delphi-panel group judgement process. Clinical variables were permuted to define 2058 clinical settings. Each panelist rated appropriateness of high-dose therapy and an autotransplant versus conventional therapy on a 9-point ordinal scale (1: most inappropriate, 9: most appropriate). An appropriateness index was developed based on median rating and amount of disagreement. The relationship of appropriateness indices to the permuted clinical variables was considered by analysis of variance and recursive partitioning. CONCLUSIONS: In women with local/regional breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with > or = 10 cancer-involved lymph nodes; 2) uncertain in those with 4-9 cancer-involved nodes; and 3) inappropriate in women with < or = 3 cancer-involved lymph nodes. In women with metastatic breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with metastases to 'favorable' sites (skin, lymph node, pleura) and a complete or partial response to chemotherapy; 2) uncertain in women with metastases to 'unfavorable' sites (lung, liver, or central nervous system) and a complete response to chemotherapy or those with bone metastases and a complete or partial response or stable disease after chemotherapy; and 3) inappropriate in other settings.
BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant is a better treatment than conventional-dose chemotherapy for women with local/regional or metastatic breast cancer. Subject selection and time-to-treatment biases make definitive comparison impossible. Recent results of randomized trials are contradictory. OBJECTIVE: Determine appropriateness of high-dose chemotherapy and a blood cell or bone marrow autotransplant in women with breast cancer. PANELISTS: Nine breast cancer experts from diverse geographic sites and practice settings. EVIDENCE: Boolean MEDLINE searches of 'breast cancer' and 'chemotherapy' and/or 'blood cell' or 'bone marrow transplants'. PROCESS: We used a modified Delphi-panel group judgement process. Clinical variables were permuted to define 2058 clinical settings. Each panelist rated appropriateness of high-dose therapy and an autotransplant versus conventional therapy on a 9-point ordinal scale (1: most inappropriate, 9: most appropriate). An appropriateness index was developed based on median rating and amount of disagreement. The relationship of appropriateness indices to the permuted clinical variables was considered by analysis of variance and recursive partitioning. CONCLUSIONS: In women with local/regional breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with > or = 10 cancer-involved lymph nodes; 2) uncertain in those with 4-9 cancer-involved nodes; and 3) inappropriate in women with < or = 3 cancer-involved lymph nodes. In women with metastatic breast cancer autotransplants were rated: 1) appropriate in those with metastases to 'favorable' sites (skin, lymph node, pleura) and a complete or partial response to chemotherapy; 2) uncertain in women with metastases to 'unfavorable' sites (lung, liver, or central nervous system) and a complete response to chemotherapy or those with bone metastases and a complete or partial response or stable disease after chemotherapy; and 3) inappropriate in other settings.
Authors: R P Gale; G Barosi; T Barbui; F Cervantes; K Dohner; B Dupriez; V Gupta; C Harrison; R Hoffman; J-J Kiladjian; R Mesa; M F Mc Mullin; F Passamonti; V Ribrag; G Roboz; G Saglio; A Vannucchi; S Verstovsek Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2010-08-07 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Benjamin Kim; Zachary S Predmore; Soeren Mattke; Kristin van Busum; Courtney A Gidengil Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2015-02-06
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Ashley J Housten; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-07-20