PURPOSE: To assess whether radiation oncologists and surgeons differ in their attitudes regarding the local management of breast cancer, and to examine coordination of care between these specialists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We surveyed attending surgeons and radiation oncologists who treated a population-based sample of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in metropolitan Detroit and Los Angeles. We identified 419 surgeons, of whom 318 (76%) responded, and 160 radiation oncologists, of whom 117 (73%) responded. We assessed demographic, professional, and practice characteristics; challenges to coordinated care; and attitudes toward management in three scenarios. RESULTS: 92.1% of surgeons and 94.8% of radiation oncologists indicated access to a multidisciplinary tumor board. Nevertheless, the most commonly identified challenge to radiation oncologists, cited by 27.9%, was failure of other providers to include them in the treatment decision process early enough. Nearly half the surgeons (49.7%) stated that few or almost none of the breast cancer patients they saw in the past 12 months had consulted with a radiation oncologist before undergoing definitive surgery. Surgeons and radiation oncologists differed in their recommendations in management scenarios. Radiation oncologists were more likely to favor radiation than were surgeons for a patient with 3/20 lymph nodes undergoing mastectomy (p = 0.03); surgeons were more likely to favor more widely clear margins after breast conservation than were radiation oncologists (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread availability of tumor boards, a substantial minority of radiation oncologists indicated other providers failed to include them in the breast cancer treatment decision-making process early enough. Earlier inclusion of radiation oncologists may influence patient decisions, and interventions to facilitate this should be considered. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: To assess whether radiation oncologists and surgeons differ in their attitudes regarding the local management of breast cancer, and to examine coordination of care between these specialists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We surveyed attending surgeons and radiation oncologists who treated a population-based sample of patients diagnosed with breast cancer in metropolitan Detroit and Los Angeles. We identified 419 surgeons, of whom 318 (76%) responded, and 160 radiation oncologists, of whom 117 (73%) responded. We assessed demographic, professional, and practice characteristics; challenges to coordinated care; and attitudes toward management in three scenarios. RESULTS: 92.1% of surgeons and 94.8% of radiation oncologists indicated access to a multidisciplinary tumor board. Nevertheless, the most commonly identified challenge to radiation oncologists, cited by 27.9%, was failure of other providers to include them in the treatment decision process early enough. Nearly half the surgeons (49.7%) stated that few or almost none of the breast cancerpatients they saw in the past 12 months had consulted with a radiation oncologist before undergoing definitive surgery. Surgeons and radiation oncologists differed in their recommendations in management scenarios. Radiation oncologists were more likely to favor radiation than were surgeons for a patient with 3/20 lymph nodes undergoing mastectomy (p = 0.03); surgeons were more likely to favor more widely clear margins after breast conservation than were radiation oncologists (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread availability of tumor boards, a substantial minority of radiation oncologists indicated other providers failed to include them in the breast cancer treatment decision-making process early enough. Earlier inclusion of radiation oncologists may influence patient decisions, and interventions to facilitate this should be considered. Copyright Â
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Monica Morrow; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; John Z Ayanian; Eric P Winer; Edward Guadagnoli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Nancy K Janz; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Megan R Haymart; Mousumi Banerjee; Di Yang; Andrew K Stewart; Ronald J Koenig; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robin Urquhart; Cynthia Kendell; Gordon Buduhan; Daniel Rayson; Joan Sargeant; Paul Johnson; Eva Grunfeld; Geoffrey A Porter Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-01-12
Authors: Kathryn M Schuessler; Mousumi Banerjee; Di Yang; Andrew K Stewart; Gerard M Doherty; Megan R Haymart Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Megan R Haymart; Mousumi Banerjee; Di Yang; Andrew K Stewart; Gerard M Doherty; Ronald J Koenig; Jennifer J Griggs Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Monica Morrow; Paul Abrahamse; Timothy P Hofer; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Allison W Kurian; Steven J Katz; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Peter C Gerszten; Arjun Sahgal; Jason P Sheehan; Ronald Kersh; Stephanie Chen; John C Flickinger; Mubina Quader; Daniel Fahim; Inga Grills; John H Shin; Brian Winey; Kevin Oh; Reinhart A Sweeney; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Robin Urquhart; Cynthia Kendell; Joan Sargeant; Gordon Buduhan; Paul Johnson; Daniel Rayson; Eva Grunfeld; Geoffrey A Porter Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 7.327