PURPOSE: To determine how physicians monitor their patients after initial curative-intent treatment for breast carcinoma. METHODS: A custom-designed survey instrument with four idealized patient vignettes (TNM stages 0 to III) was e-mailed to the 3,245 members of ASCO who had identified themselves as having breast cancer as a major focus of their practice. Respondents were asked how they use 12 specific follow-up modalities during post-treatment years 1 to 5 for each vignette. Mean, median, standard deviation, and range of the intensity of use for each modality were calculated for the four vignettes. RESULTS: Of the 3,245 ASCO members surveyed, 1,012 (31%) responded. Of these, 915 (90%) were evaluable and were included in our analysis. Office visit, mammogram, complete blood count, and liver function tests were the most commonly recommended surveillance modalities. There was marked variation in surveillance intensity. For example, office visit was recommended 4.1 ± 2.2 times (mean ± SD) in year 1 after curative treatment of a patient with stage III breast cancer. Similar variation was observed for all modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of post-treatment surveillance performed by ASCO members caring for patients with breast cancer varies markedly despite evidence from well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Many modalities not recommended by ASCO guidelines are used routinely, which constitutes evidence of overuse. The lack of consensus is likely due to multiple factors and constitutes an appealing target for interventions to rationalize surveillance.
PURPOSE: To determine how physicians monitor their patients after initial curative-intent treatment for breast carcinoma. METHODS: A custom-designed survey instrument with four idealized patient vignettes (TNM stages 0 to III) was e-mailed to the 3,245 members of ASCO who had identified themselves as having breast cancer as a major focus of their practice. Respondents were asked how they use 12 specific follow-up modalities during post-treatment years 1 to 5 for each vignette. Mean, median, standard deviation, and range of the intensity of use for each modality were calculated for the four vignettes. RESULTS: Of the 3,245 ASCO members surveyed, 1,012 (31%) responded. Of these, 915 (90%) were evaluable and were included in our analysis. Office visit, mammogram, complete blood count, and liver function tests were the most commonly recommended surveillance modalities. There was marked variation in surveillance intensity. For example, office visit was recommended 4.1 ± 2.2 times (mean ± SD) in year 1 after curative treatment of a patient with stage III breast cancer. Similar variation was observed for all modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of post-treatment surveillance performed by ASCO members caring for patients with breast cancer varies markedly despite evidence from well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Many modalities not recommended by ASCO guidelines are used routinely, which constitutes evidence of overuse. The lack of consensus is likely due to multiple factors and constitutes an appealing target for interventions to rationalize surveillance.
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Mark N Levine; Jim A Julian; Doug Coyle; Barbara Szechtman; Doug Mirsky; Shailendara Verma; Susan Dent; Carol Sawka; Kathleen I Pritchard; David Ginsburg; Marjorie Wood; Tim Whelan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lawrence Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Eva Grunfeld; Corona Gainford; Veronique Benk; Susan Bondy; Doug Coyle; Claire Holloway; Carol Sawka; Rene Shumak; Katherine Vallis; Carl van Walraven Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Stig B Holmberg; Jurij Lindtner; Beat Thürlimann; John Collins; Martin F Fey; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Timothy L Lash; Matthew P Fox; Diana S M Buist; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Floyd J Frost; Ann M Geiger; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ku Sang Kim; Zisun Kim; Eun-Jung Shim; Nam Hyoung Kim; So-Youn Jung; Jisun Kim; Guiyun Sohn; Jong Won Lee; Jihyoung Cho; Jung Eun Lee; Juhyung Lee; Hyun Jo Youn; Jihyoun Lee; Min Hyuk Lee Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 1.859
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; David F Schneider; Emily R Winslow; Rebecca A Busch; Jennifer L Tucholka; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S Feiten; J Dünnebacke; V Friesenhahn; J Heymanns; H Köppler; R Meister; J Thomalla; C van Roye; D Wey; R Weide Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Erin E Hahn; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle E Melisko; John P Pierce; Marlene von Friederichs-Fitzwater; Karen T Lane; Robert A Hiatt Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: J L Tucholka; N Jacobson; N M Steffens; J R Schumacher; A J Tevaarwerk; B Anderson; L G Wilke; C C Greenberg; Heather B Neuman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: K Enright; T Desai; R Sutradhar; A Gonzalez; M Powis; N Taback; C M Booth; M E Trudeau; M K Krzyzanowska Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.677