Dean A Shumway1, Chandler M McLeod2, Monica Morrow3, Yun Li2, Allison W Kurian4, Aaron Sabolch1, Ann S Hamilton5, Kevin C Ward6, Steven J Katz7, Sarah T Hawley7, Reshma Jagsi8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate patient experiences with decisions regarding radiation therapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to assess clinician views on the role of RT for DCIS with favorable features in the present era. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A sample of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer from the population-based Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were sent surveys approximately 2 months after undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), with a 70% response rate. The analytic sample was limited to 538 respondents with unilateral DCIS. We also surveyed 761 surgeons and radiation oncologists treating breast cancer in those regions, of whom, 539 responded (71%). RESULTS: After BCS, 23% of patients omitted RT, with twice the rate of omission in Los Angeles County relative to Georgia (31% vs 16%; P < .001). The most common reasons for omitting RT were advice from a clinician that it was not needed (62%) and concern about side effects (24%). Cost and transportation were not reported as influential considerations. After covariate adjustment, low- and intermediate-grade disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-12; and OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1, respectively) and Los Angeles County SEER site (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.2) were significantly associated with greater RT omission. Of the responding clinicians, 62% would discuss RT omission for a patient with DCIS with favorable features. Clinicians in Los Angeles County were more likely to discuss RT omission than were those in Georgia (67% vs 56%; P = .01). Approximately one third of clinicians would obtain the Oncotype DX DCIS score. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity in RT omission after BCS for DCIS continues to be substantial, with systematic differences in provider opinions across the 2 regions we studied. Enhanced precision of recurrence estimates, guidance from professional organizations, and better communication are needed to improve the consistency of treatment in this controversial area.
PURPOSE: To evaluate patient experiences with decisions regarding radiation therapy (RT) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to assess clinician views on the role of RT for DCIS with favorable features in the present era. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A sample of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer from the population-based Georgia and Los Angeles County Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were sent surveys approximately 2 months after undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS), with a 70% response rate. The analytic sample was limited to 538 respondents with unilateral DCIS. We also surveyed 761 surgeons and radiation oncologists treating breast cancer in those regions, of whom, 539 responded (71%). RESULTS: After BCS, 23% of patients omitted RT, with twice the rate of omission in Los Angeles County relative to Georgia (31% vs 16%; P < .001). The most common reasons for omitting RT were advice from a clinician that it was not needed (62%) and concern about side effects (24%). Cost and transportation were not reported as influential considerations. After covariate adjustment, low- and intermediate-grade disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-12; and OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7-6.1, respectively) and Los Angeles County SEER site (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.2) were significantly associated with greater RT omission. Of the responding clinicians, 62% would discuss RT omission for a patient with DCIS with favorable features. Clinicians in Los Angeles County were more likely to discuss RT omission than were those in Georgia (67% vs 56%; P = .01). Approximately one third of clinicians would obtain the Oncotype DX DCIS score. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity in RT omission after BCS for DCIS continues to be substantial, with systematic differences in provider opinions across the 2 regions we studied. Enhanced precision of recurrence estimates, guidance from professional organizations, and better communication are needed to improve the consistency of treatment in this controversial area.
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Tim P Hofer; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Dennis Deapen; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Paul Abrahamse; Sarah T Hawley; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette Molinaro; Imok Cha; Britt-Marie Ljung; Virginia L Ernster; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Dan H Moore; Fred Waldman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Nancy K Janz; Kent A Griffith; Reshma Jagsi; Christopher R Friese; Allison W Kurian; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Monica Morrow; Lauren P Wallner; Steven J Katz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Anosheh Afghahi; Maya Mathur; Caroline A Thompson; Aya Mitani; Joseph Rigdon; Manisha Desai; Peter P Yu; Monique A de Bruin; Tina Seto; Cliff Olson; Pragati Kenkare; Scarlett L Gomez; Amar K Das; Harold S Luft; George W Sledge; Amy P Sing; Allison W Kurian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Maeve Mullooly; Diana R Withrow; Rochelle E Curtis; Shaoqi Fan; Linda M Liao; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Amy Berrington de González; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Hae Jin Park; Do Hoon Oh; Kyung Hwan Shin; Jin Ho Kim; Doo Ho Choi; Won Park; Chang-Ok Suh; Yong Bae Kim; Seung Do Ahn; Su Ssan Kim Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 3.588