Practical Implications of the Publication of Consensus Guidelines by the American Society for Radiation Oncology: Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation and the National Cancer Data Base

PURPOSE

To examine utilization trends of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in the American College of Surgeons' National Cancer Database and changes in APBI use after the 2009 publication of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 399,705 women were identified who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2011 with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy to the breast. Patients were divided by the type of treatment received (whole breast irradiation or APBI) and by suitability to receive APBI as defined by the ASTRO guidelines. Logistic regression was applied to study APBI use overall and within guideline categorization, and a multivariable model was created to determine predictors of treatment with brachytherapy-based APBI based on guideline categorization.

RESULTS

For all patients, APBI use increased, from 3.8% in 2004 to 10.6% in 2011 (P<.0001). Overall rates of APBI utilization were higher among "suitable" than "cautionary"/"unsuitable" patients (14.8% vs 7.1%, P<.0001). The majority of APBI treatment was delivered using brachytherapy, for which use peaked in 2008. Starting in 2009, among "suitable" patients, utilization of APBI via brachytherapy plateaued, whereas for "cautionary"/"unsuitable" patients, treatment with brachytherapy-based APBI declined and then plateaued.

CONCLUSION

Use of APBI across all patient groups increased from 2004 through 2008. After publication of the ASTRO APBI guidelines in 2009, rates of brachytherapy-based APBI treatment plateaued among "suitable" patients and declined and then plateaued among "cautionary"/"unsuitable" patients. Our study highlights how large national databases can be used to assess national trends in radiation use in response to the publication of guidelines.

Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine

This opinion deals critically with the so-called complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapy on the basis of current data. From the authors' perspective, CAM prescriptions and most notably the extensive current endeavours to the "integration" of CAM into conventional patient care is problematic in several respects. Thus, several CAM measures are used, although no specific effects of medicines can be proved in clinical studies. It is extensively explained that the methods used in this regard are those of evidence-based medicine, which is one of the indispensable pillars of science-oriented medicine. This standard of proof of efficacy is fundamentally independent of the requirement of being able to explain efficacy of a therapy in a manner compatible with the insights of the natural sciences, which is also essential for medical progress. Numerous CAM treatments can however never conceivably satisfy this requirement; rather they are justified with pre-scientific or unscientific paradigms. The high attractiveness of CAM measures evidenced in patients and many doctors is based on a combination of positive expectations and experiences, among other things, which are at times unjustified, at times thoroughly justified, from a science-oriented view, but which are non-specific (context effects). With a view to the latter phenomenon, the authors consider the conscious use of CAM as unrevealed therapeutic placebos to be problematic. In addition, they advocate that academic medicine should again systematically endeavour to pay more attention to medical empathy and use context effects in the service of patients to the utmost. The subsequent opinion discusses the following after an introduction to medical history: the definition of CAM; the efficacy of most common CAM procedures; CAM utilisation and costs in Germany; characteristics of science-oriented medicine; awareness of placebo research; pro and contra arguments about the use of CAM, not least of all in terms of aspects related to medical ethics.

Balloon brachytherapy for breast cancer prove that it works? Or, prove that it doesn't?

Balloon breast brachytherapy is a catheter-based technique to deliver high local concentration of radiation following breast-sparing surgery. Although this technique is logically appealing--providing more directed radiation to sites at high risk of local failure--there remains little empirical support that this intervention is non-inferior to external beam radiotherapy, a well-established standard. Additionally, observational studies suggest that balloon brachytherapy is associated with high rates of local complications, and higher rates of subsequent mastectomy, a marker of local failure. Here, I explore regulatory and clinical considerations that lead to the widespread adoption of breast brachytherapy. I argue that the therapy spread before its efficacy was confirmed. Breast brachytherapy illustrates ongoing complexities in the approval of novel devices.