Breast cancer follow-up in the adjuvant setting

Choosing Wisely India: ten low-value or harmful practices that should be avoided in cancer care

The Choosing Wisely India campaign was an initiative that was established to identify low-value or potentially harmful practices that are relevant to the Indian cancer health-care system. We undertook a multidisciplinary framework-driven consensus process to identify a list of low-value or harmful cancer practices that are frequently undertaken in India. A task force convened by the National Cancer Grid of India included Indian representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology. Each specialty had representation from the private and public sectors. The task force included two representatives from national patient and patient advocacy groups. Of the ten practices that were identified, four are completely new recommendations, and six are revisions or adaptations from previous Choosing Wisely USA and Canada lists. Recommendations in the final list pertain to diagnosis and treatment (five practices), palliative care (two practices), imaging (two practices), and system-level delivery of care (two practices). Implementation of this list and reporting of concordance with its recommendations will facilitate the delivery of high-quality, value-based cancer care in India.

Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a time-dependent logistic regression model for prediction of locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer and a web-based nomogram for clinical decision support. Women first diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2003 and 2006 in all Dutch hospitals were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 37,230). In the first 5 years following primary breast cancer treatment, 950 (2.6 %) patients developed a LRR as first event. Risk factors were determined using logistic regression and the risks were calculated per year, conditional on not being diagnosed with recurrence in the previous year. Discrimination and calibration were assessed. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation. Data on primary tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2008 in 43 Dutch hospitals were used for external validation of the performance of the nomogram (n = 12,308). The final model included the variables grade, size, multifocality, and nodal involvement of the primary tumour, and whether patients were treated with radio-, chemo- or hormone therapy. The index cohort showed an area under the ROC curve of 0.84, 0.77, 0.70, 0.73 and 0.62, respectively, per subsequent year after primary treatment. Model predictions were well calibrated. Estimates in the validation cohort did not differ significantly from the index cohort. The results were incorporated in a web-based nomogram (http://www.utwente.nl/mira/influence). This validated nomogram can be used as an instrument to identify patients with a low or high risk of LRR who might benefit from a less or more intensive follow-up after breast cancer and to aid clinical decision making for personalised follow-up.

How do I follow patients with early breast cancer after completing adjuvant therapy

OPINION STATEMENT

With improvements in the detection and treatment of breast cancer, more women are surviving after diagnosis. Patients who complete adjuvant therapy require ongoing follow-up to manage toxicities, to detect recurrences early, and to provide ongoing physical and psychosocial support. Routine surveillance should be implemented, with attention to educating patients about symptoms of recurrence, such as weight loss, cough, and bone pain. An intensive surveillance strategy with the routine use of laboratory and radiographic studies does not improve outcomes and raises the cost of follow-up. Patients should have annual mammograms in conjunction with physical exam and history at appropriate intervals that increase the farther out patients are from treatment. Attention also should be focused on other routine health maintenance and cancer screening, such as colonoscopy, gynecologic examinations, and bone health/DEXA scans. In the early posttreatment period, medical oncologists are best equipped to follow these patients. However, as women live longer after a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, transitioning care to a primary care physician or nurse practitioner is appropriate, provided these practitioners are educated about late treatment effects and managing side effects of treatment, which may continue as long as a decade. A multidisciplinary follow-up strategy with excellent communication between providers can ensure safe, convenient, and quality care to the growing population of breast cancer survivors. As the treatment of breast cancer evolves into personalized strategies based on the biologic characteristics of individual tumors, future studies will be needed to determine if a single surveillance strategy is sufficient or if individualized surveillance based on risk can improve outcomes and costs of long-term follow-up care.

Future directions for the early detection of recurrent breast cancer

The main goal of follow-up care after breast cancer treatment is the early detection of disease recurrence. In this review, we emphasize the multidisciplinary approach to this continuity of care from surgery, medical oncology, and radiology. Challenges within each setting are briefly addressed as a means of discussion for the future directions of an effective and efficient surveillance plan of post-treatment breast cancer care.

Discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care at the end of hospital follow-up: a cross-sectional survey

AIM

The present study explored (a) the discharge of breast cancer patients to primary care by specialists, at the end of hospital follow-up and (b) the experiences and views of general practitioners (GPs) regarding transfer of follow-up to the primary care setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed by sending a self-administered questionnaire to 960 GPs working in the three northern provinces of the Netherlands. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 949 eligible questionnaires, 502 were returned, providing an adjusted response rate of 53%. In the year before the survey took place, one or more patients aged >60 years, and 5 years after breast-conserving therapy, were discharged to 22% of GPs (n=112) for follow-up. According to 56% of these GPs, transfer of follow-up was communicated by the hospital. The initiative to arrange follow-up visits and mammography appointments was mainly taken by patients. In this survey, 40% of GPs (n=200) were willing to accept exclusive responsibility for follow-up earlier than 5 years after completion of active treatment. Perceived barriers in current and future primary care-based follow-up included: communication with breast cancer specialists, patients' preference for specialist follow-up, GPs' oncology knowledge and skills and the organisation of follow-up in general practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care-based follow-up might be improved if breast cancer specialists discharge patients more actively to their GPs. Survivorship care plans are needed to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training of GPs and developing administrative tools may be helpful in arranging follow-up care and using guidelines in general practice.

Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Both incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer.

METHOD

A systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1-4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions.

RESULTS

Women who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed.

An evidence based strategy for follow up after breast conserving treatment for breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Follow up for breast cancer patients aims at the timely detection of loco-regional recurrences and contralateral breast cancers (LRR). This study investigates the annual risk of LRR after breast conserving treatment (BCT) and the potential value of mammographic surveillance and/or routine clinical examination.

METHODS

Data on 650 women who underwent BCT were obtained and LRR was divided into parenchymal and non-parenchymal. LRR-free and cumulative LRR-free rates were calculated. In patients where recurrence was diagnosed at a routine clinic visit and had negative mammography ("clinical detection only" group) were also separately examined.

RESULTS

Median follow up was 115 months, range 9-196. Seventy-three patients had parenchymal and 16 nodal recurrence. The median probability of LRR was 1.4% and of parenchymal LRR was 1.32% per year, remaining constant for up to 168 months. The 16 patients in the "clinical detection only" group relapsed mainly during the first 2 years (annual risk 0.77% and 0.80%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the risk of parenchymal LRR remains constant for at least 14 years and is significant enough to warrant routine long-term follow up mammography. Routine clinical examination contributes significantly to the detection of LRR only for the first 2 years.

American Society of Clinical Oncology-recommended surveillance and physician specialty among long-term breast cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether it is appropriate to transfer the follow-up care of breast cancer (BrCa) survivors from cancer specialists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This contemporary study compared physician specialty and documented the long-term surveillance of survivors who underwent surgery at an American academic center.

METHODS

Women in this institutional review board-approved study underwent breast surgery between 1996 and 2006. Data were collected for 270 patients with stage I to III BrCa (mean follow-up, 6 years). Charts were reviewed based on American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for recommended surveillance frequency and care.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (90%; n = 242) were followed by specialists with 10% (n = 28) followed by PCPs. Patients with advanced disease and a greater risk of disease recurrence more often received specialist care. Patients followed by specialists were more often seen at ASCO-recommended intervals (eg, 89% vs 69% of patients followed by a PCP at follow-up Year 6; P < .01); however, many patients were followed inconsistently. Breast disease was often not the focus of PCP visits or mentioned in clinic notes (18% patients). Women seen by specialists were more likely to have documented clinical examinations of the breast (93% vs 44% at Year 6), axilla (94% vs 52%), or annual mammograms (74% vs 48%; P = .001-.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent compliance with surveillance guidelines and chart documentation needs improvement among all providers; however, specialists more consistently met ASCO guidelines. If transfer of care to a PCP occurs, it should be formalized and include follow-up recommendations and defined physician responsibilities. Providers and patients should be educated regarding surveillance care and current guidelines incorporated into standard clinical practice.