Heather B Neuman1,2, Jessica R Schumacher3, Amanda B Francescatti4, Taiwo Adesoye3, Stephen B Edge5, Elizabeth S Burnside6, David J Vanness3,7,8, Menggang Yu9, Yajuan Si8, Dan McKellar10, David P Winchester11, Caprice C Greenberg3,7. 1. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 2. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Neuman@surgery.wisc.edu. 3. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 4. ACS Clinical Research Program, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 7. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 8. Population Health Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 9. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 10. Department of Surgery, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA. 11. American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method. RESULTS: Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. DISCUSSION: Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.
BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer follow-up guidelines emphasize the importance of clinical examinations, prior studies suggest a small fraction of local-regional events occurring after breast conservation are detected by examination alone. Our objective was to examine how local-regional events are detected in a contemporary, national cohort of high-risk breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A stage-stratified sample of stage II/III breast cancerpatients diagnosed in 2006-2007 (n = 11,099) were identified from 1217 facilities within the National Cancer Data Base. Additional data on local-regional and distant breast events, method of event detection, imaging received, and mortality were collected. We further limited the cohort to patients with breast conservation (n = 4854). Summary statistics describe local-regional event rates and detection method. RESULTS: Local-regional events were detected in 5.5 % (n = 265) of patients. Eighty-three percent were ipsilateral or contralateral in-breast events, and 17 % occurred within ipsilateral lymph nodes. Forty-eight percent of local-regional events were detected on asymptomatic breast imaging, 29 % by patients, and 10 % on clinical examination. Overall, 0.5 % of the 4854 patients had a local-regional event detected on examination. Examinations detected a higher proportion of lymph node events (8/45) compared with in-breast events (18/220). No factors were associated with method of event detection. DISCUSSION: Clinical examinations, as an adjunct to screening mammography, have a modest effect on local-regional event detection. This contradicts current belief that examinations are a critical adjunct to mammographic screening. These findings can help to streamline follow-up care, potentially improving follow-up efficiency and quality.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Nicole M Steffens; Nora Jacobson; Amye Tevaarwerk; Bethany Anderson; Lee G Wilke; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Hyman B Muss; Les Irwig Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rachel J D Cossetti; Scott K Tyldesley; Caroline H Speers; Yvonne Zheng; Karen A Gelmon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maurice J C van der Sangen; Sanne W M Scheepers; Philip M P Poortmans; Ernest J T Luiten; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Adri C Voogd Journal: Breast Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Patricia Hurley; Elissa Bantug; Laura J Esserman; Eva Grunfeld; Francine Halberg; Alexander Hantel; N Lynn Henry; Hyman B Muss; Thomas J Smith; Victor G Vogel; Antonio C Wolff; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heather B Neuman; Jennifer M Weiss; Deborah Schrag; Katie Ronk; Jeffrey Havlena; Noelle K LoConte; Maureen A Smith; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J Y Y Kwan; J Croke; T Panzarella; K Ubhi; A Fyles; A Koch; R Dinniwell; W Levin; D McCready; C Chung; F Liu; J L Bender Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Taiwo Adesoye; Jessica R Schumacher; Heather B Neuman; Stephen Edge; Daniel McKellar; David P Winchester; Amanda B Francescatti; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 5.344