1
|
McDonald ES, Scheel JR, Lewin AA, Weinstein SP, Dodelzon K, Dogan BE, Fitzpatrick A, Kuzmiak CM, Newell MS, Paulis LV, Pilewskie M, Salkowski LR, Silva HC, Sharpe RE, Specht JM, Ulaner GA, Slanetz PJ. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2024; 21:S168-S202. [PMID: 38823943 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.02.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2024] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 06/03/2024]
Abstract
As the proportion of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer increases, the role of imaging for staging and surveillance purposes should be determined based on evidence-based guidelines. It is important to understand the indications for extent of disease evaluation and staging, as unnecessary imaging can delay care and even result in adverse outcomes. In asymptomatic patients that received treatment for curative intent, there is no role for imaging to screen for distant recurrence. Routine surveillance with an annual 2-D mammogram and/or tomosynthesis is recommended to detect an in-breast recurrence or a new primary breast cancer in women with a history of breast cancer, and MRI is increasingly used as an additional screening tool in this population, especially in women with dense breasts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth S McDonald
- Research Author, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - John R Scheel
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
| | - Alana A Lewin
- Panel Chair, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Susan P Weinstein
- Panel Vice Chair, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Basak E Dogan
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Amy Fitzpatrick
- Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Primary care physician
| | | | - Mary S Newell
- Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia; RADS Committee
| | | | - Melissa Pilewskie
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Society of Surgical Oncology
| | - Lonie R Salkowski
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - H Colleen Silva
- The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; American College of Surgeons
| | | | - Jennifer M Specht
- University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; American Society of Clinical Oncology
| | - Gary A Ulaner
- Hoag Family Cancer Institute, Newport Beach, California; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | - Priscilla J Slanetz
- Specialty Chair, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ankersmid JW, Engelhardt EG, Lansink Rotgerink FK, The R, Strobbe LJA, Drossaert CHC, Siesling S, van Uden-Kraan CF. Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1390. [PMID: 38611068 PMCID: PMC11010914 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2024] [Revised: 03/28/2024] [Accepted: 03/29/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations. METHODS Implementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content. RESULTS The average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis (n = 64) showed patients were offered a choice, but deliberation was lacking. Risk communication was generally adequate. DISCUSSION When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jet W. Ankersmid
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands;
- Santeon, 3584 AA Utrecht, The Netherlands; (E.G.E.)
| | | | | | - Regina The
- ZorgKeuzeLab, 2611 BN Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Luc J. A. Strobbe
- Department of Surgery, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, 6532 SZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Constance H. C. Drossaert
- Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands;
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands;
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, 3501 DB Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mehta TS, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, Bennett DL, Brown A, Chetlen A, Freer P, Ivansco LK, Jochelson MS, Klein KA, Malak SF, McCrary M, Mullins D, Neal CH, Newell MS, Ulaner GA, Moy L. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Breast Surgery. J Am Coll Radiol 2022; 19:S341-S356. [PMID: 36436961 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 09/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Given that 20% to 40% of women who have percutaneous breast biopsy subsequently undergo breast surgery, knowledge of imaging women with a history of benign (including high-risk) disease or breast cancer is important. For women who had surgery for nonmalignant pathology, the surveillance recommendations are determined by their overall risk. Higher-than-average risk women with a history of benign surgery may require screening mammography starting at an earlier age before 40 and may benefit from screening MRI. For women with breast cancer who have undergone initial excision and have positive margins, imaging with diagnostic mammography or MRI can sometimes guide additional surgical planning. Women who have completed breast conservation therapy for cancer should get annual mammography and may benefit from the addition of MRI or ultrasound to their surveillance regimen. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tejas S Mehta
- Director of Diversity, Equity Inclusion and Population Health in Radiology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worchester, Massachusetts.
| | - Ana P Lourenco
- Panel Chair; Residency Program Director, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Bethany L Niell
- Panel Vice-Chair; Section Chief of Breast Imaging, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida; Commission Government Relations Chair
| | - Debbie L Bennett
- Section Chief - Breast Imaging, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology/Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
| | - Ann Brown
- Assistant Section Chief, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Alison Chetlen
- Vice Chair of Education, Division Chief Breast Imaging, Penn State Health Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
| | - Phoebe Freer
- Section Chief, Breast Imaging, University of Utah/Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah; ACR/SCBI Screening Leadership Group Inaugural Class
| | - Lillian K Ivansco
- Assistant Chief, Department of Radiology, Section Chief for Breast Imaging and Quality, Co-Chair, Breast Imaging Sourcing and Standards Team, Kaiser Permanente Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Maxine S Jochelson
- Chief of the Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Marion McCrary
- Associate Director of Duke GME Coaching, Duke Signature Care, Durham, North Carolina; American College of Physicians; Governor-Elect, American College of Physicians, North Carolina Chapter
| | - David Mullins
- Chief of Staff, Princeton Community Hospital, Princeton, West Virginia; American College of Surgeons
| | | | - Mary S Newell
- Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia; RADS Committee
| | - Gary A Ulaner
- Hoag Family Cancer Institute, Newport Beach, California and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | - Linda Moy
- Specialty Chair, NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ankersmid JW, Siesling S, Strobbe LJA, Bode-Meulepas JM, van Riet YEA, Engels N, Prick JCM, The R, Takahashi A, Velting M, van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC. Supporting shared decision making about surveillance after breast cancer with personalised recurrence risk calculations: the development of a patient decision aid using the IPDAS development process in combination with a mixed-methods design (Preprint). JMIR Cancer 2022; 8:e38088. [DOI: 10.2196/38088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2022] [Revised: 09/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
5
|
Tremblay D, Touati N, Bilodeau K, Prady C, Usher S, Leblanc Y. Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:3408-3419. [PMID: 34590587 PMCID: PMC8482148 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28050295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Revised: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominique Tremblay
- Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Campus de Longueuil-Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada; (C.P.); (S.U.)
- Centre de Recherche Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-450-466-5000 (ext. 2885)
| | - Nassera Touati
- École Nationale d’Administration Publique, 4750 Henri-Julien Avenue, Montréal, QC H2T 3E5, Canada;
| | - Karine Bilodeau
- Faculté des Sciences Infirmières et Centre D’Innovation en Formation Infirmière, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T 1A8, Canada;
| | - Catherine Prady
- Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Campus de Longueuil-Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada; (C.P.); (S.U.)
- Centre de Recherche Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada;
- Centre Intégré de Cancérologie de la Montérégie, 3120 Boulevard Taschereau, Greenfield Park, QC J4V 2H1, Canada
| | - Susan Usher
- Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Campus de Longueuil-Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada; (C.P.); (S.U.)
- École Nationale d’Administration Publique, 4750 Henri-Julien Avenue, Montréal, QC H2T 3E5, Canada;
| | - Yves Leblanc
- Centre de Recherche Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada;
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Witteveen A, Otten JWM, Vliegen IMH, Siesling S, Timmer JB, IJzerman MJ. Risk-based breast cancer follow-up stratified by age. Cancer Med 2018; 7:5291-5298. [PMID: 30207076 PMCID: PMC6198239 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2018] [Revised: 07/15/2018] [Accepted: 07/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Although personalization of cancer care is recommended, current follow‐up after the curative treatment of breast cancer is consensus‐based and not differentiated for base‐line risk. Every patient receives annual follow‐up for 5 years without taking into account the individual risk of recurrence. The aim of this study was to introduce personalized follow‐up schemes by stratifying for age. Using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry of 37 230 patients with early breast cancer between 2003 and 2006, the risk of recurrence was determined for four age groups (<50, 50‐59, 60‐69, >70). Follow‐up was modeled with a discrete‐time partially observable Markov decision process. The decision to test for recurrences was made two times per year. Recurrences could be detected by mammography as well as by self‐detection. For all age groups, it was optimal to have more intensive follow‐up around the peak in recurrence risk in the second year after diagnosis. For the first age group (<50) with the highest risk, a slightly more intensive follow‐up with one extra visit was proposed compared to the current guideline recommendation. The other age groups were recommended less visits: four for ages 50‐59, three for 60‐69, and three for ≥70. With this model for risk‐based follow‐up, clinicians can make informed decisions and focus resources on patients with higher risk, while avoiding unnecessary and potentially harmful follow‐up visits for women with very low risks. The model can easily be extended to take into account more risk factors and provide even more personalized follow‐up schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annemieke Witteveen
- Department of Health Technology and Services ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
| | - Jan W. M. Otten
- Department of Stochastic Operations ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
| | - Ingrid M. H. Vliegen
- Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation SciencesEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Health Technology and Services ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
- Department of ResearchNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL)UtrechtThe Netherlands
| | - Judith B. Timmer
- Department of Stochastic Operations ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
| | - Maarten J. IJzerman
- Department of Health Technology and Services ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
- Faculty of MedicineDentistry and Health SciencesSchool of Population and Global HealthUniversity of Melbourne and Victorian Comprehensive Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| |
Collapse
|