The real difficulty in improving concordance of clinical practice with guidelines

The degree to which patient care is concordant with guidelines is widely used to assess the quality of health care. Compliance with guidelines is very high for certain cancers and procedures but not for others. For example, patients with stage I-III colon cancer routinely undergo bowel resection, with very little variation in rates between regions or institutions (1). However, assuming that noncompliance to follow guidelines reflects a failure of the care providers is not so straightforward when there are many possible treatment alternatives that have very different characteristics, especially when there is controversy about whether they are equivalent. About 15% to 30% of patients with early-stage breast cancer who undergo breast-conservation surgery (BCS) do not receive whole-breast irradiation (WBI), which has been the “standard” treatment for decades. Possible alternative radiations include accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using brachytherapy or external-beam irradiation and intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) (2-5), in which a single dose is given at the time of surgery. These two approaches substantially shorten the duration and inconvenience of radiation therapy. Traditional WBI requires patients to commit to a 5-7-week course of treatment, while APBI involves once or twice-daily treatments generally given over 1-2 weeks and IORT requires no commitment beyond that the patient already has made to receiving surgery

Surgical Excision Without Radiation for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: 12-Year Results From the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 Study

Purpose To determine the 12-year risk of developing an ipsilateral breast event (IBE) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast treated with surgical excision (lumpectomy) without radiation. Patients and Methods A prospective clinical trial was performed for women with DCIS who were selected for low-risk clinical and pathologic characteristics. Patients were enrolled onto one of two study cohorts (not randomly assigned): cohort 1: low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, tumor size 2.5 cm or smaller (n = 561); or cohort 2: high-grade DCIS, tumor size 1 cm or smaller (n = 104). Protocol specifications included excision of the DCIS tumor with a minimum negative margin width of at least 3 mm. Tamoxifen (not randomly assigned) was given to 30% of the patients. An IBE was defined as local recurrence of DCIS or invasive carcinoma in the treated breast. Median follow-up time was 12.3 years. Results There were 99 IBEs, of which 51 (52%) were invasive. The IBE and invasive IBE rates increased over time in both cohorts. The 12-year rates of developing an IBE were 14.4% for cohort 1 and 24.6% for cohort 2 (P = .003). The 12-year rates of developing an invasive IBE were 7.5% and 13.4%, respectively (P = .08). On multivariable analysis, study cohort and tumor size were both significantly associated with developing an IBE (P = .009 and P = .03, respectively). Conclusion For patients with DCIS selected for favorable clinical and pathologic characteristics and treated with excision without radiation, the risks of developing an IBE and an invasive IBE increased through 12 years of follow-up, without plateau. These data help inform the treatment decision-making process for patients and their physicians

Conservative management of Paget disease of the breast with radiotherapy

BACKGROUND At 5-year follow-up, patients with Paget disease of the breast who were treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy (RT) had excellent results. The current report provides 10- and 15-year rates of tumor control in the breast, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates following BCS and RT in a cohort of patients with Paget disease presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density. METHODS Through a collaborative review of patients treated with BCS and RT from seven institutions, 38 cases of Paget disease of the breast presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density were identified. All patients had pathologic confirmation of typical Paget cells at time of diagnosis. Thirty-six of 38 patients had a minimum follow-up greater than 12 months and constitute the study cohort. Ninety-four percent of patients underwent complete or partial excision of the nipple-areola complex and all patients received a median external beam irradiation dose of 50 Gy (range, 45–54 Gy) to the whole breast. Ninety-seven percent of patients also received a boost to the remaining nipple or tumor bed, a median total dose of 61.5 Gy (range, 50.4–70 Gy). RESULTS With median follow-up of 113 months (range, 18–257 months), 4 of 36 patients (11%) developed a first recurrence of disease in the treated breast only. Two of the four recurrences in the breast were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only and two were invasive with DCIS. Two additional patients had a recurrence in the breast as a component of first failure. Actuarial local control rates for the breast as the only site of first recurrence were 91% at 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 80–100%) and 87% (95% CI, 75–99%) at both 10 and 15 years. Actuarial local control rates for breast recurrence, as a component of first failure, were 91% (95% CI, 80–100%), 83% (95% CI, 69–97%), and 76% (95% CI, 58–94%) at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. No clinical factors were identified as significant predictors for breast recurrence. Five-, 10- and 15-year actuarial rates for survival without disease of 97% (95% CI, 90–100%) and 5-, 10-, and 15-year actuarial rates of overall survival of 93% (95% CI, 84–100%) at 5 years and 90% (95% CI, 78–100%) at 10 and 15 years were reported. CONCLUSIONS These data confirm excellent rates of local control, disease-free survial, and overall survival at 10 and 15 years following BCS and RT for Paget disease of the breast. This study continues to support the recommendation of local excision and definitive breast irradiation as an alternative to mastectomy in the treatment of patients with Paget disease presenting without a palpable mass or mammographic density. Cancer 2003;97:2142–9. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11337Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34369/1/11337_ftp.pd

Appropriateness of the 30-day expected mortality metric in palliative radiation treatment: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The 30-day expected mortality rate is frequently used as a metric to determine which patients benefit from palliative radiation treatment (RT). We conducted a narrative review to examine whether its use as a metric might be appropriate for patient selection. METHODS A literature review was conducted to identify relevant studies that highlight the benefits of palliative RT in timely symptom management among patients with a poor performance status, the accuracy of predicting survival near the end of life and ways to speed up the process of RT administration through rapid response clinics. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS Several trials have demonstrated substantial response rates for pain and/or bleeding by four weeks and sometimes within the first two weeks after RT. Models of patient survival have limited accuracy, particularly for predicting whether patients will die within the next 30 days. Dedicated Rapid Access Palliative RT (RAPRT) clinics, in which patients are assessed, simulated and treated on the same day, reduce the number of patient visits to the radiation oncology department and hence the burden on the patient as well as costs. CONCLUSIONS Single-fraction palliative RT should be offered to eligible patients if they are able to attend treatment and could potentially benefit from symptom palliation, irrespective of predicted life expectancy. We discourage the routine use of the 30-day mortality as the only metric to decide whether to offer RT. More common implementation of RAPRT clinics could result in a significant benefit for patients of all life expectancies, but particularly those having short ones

Appropriateness of the 30-day expected mortality metric in palliative radiation treatment: a narrative review

Background and Objective: The 30-day expected mortality rate is frequently used as a metric to determine which patients benefit from palliative radiation treatment (RT). We conducted a narrative review to examine whether its use as a metric might be appropriate for patient selection. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant studies that highlight the benefits of palliative RT in timely symptom management among patients with a poor performance status, the accuracy of predicting survival near the end of life and ways to speed up the process of RT administration through rapid response clinics. Key Content and Findings: Several trials have demonstrated substantial response rates for pain and/or bleeding by four weeks and sometimes within the first two weeks after RT. Models of patient survival have limited accuracy, particularly for predicting whether patients will die within the next 30 days. Dedicated Rapid Access Palliative RT (RAPRT) clinics, in which patients are assessed, simulated and treated on the same day, reduce the number of patient visits to the radiation oncology department and hence the burden on the patient as well as costs. Conclusions: Single-fraction palliative RT should be offered to eligible patients if they are able to attend treatment and could potentially benefit from symptom palliation, irrespective of predicted life expectancy. We discourage the routine use of the 30-day mortality as the only metric to decide whether to offer RT. More common implementation of RAPRT clinics could result in a significant benefit for patients of all life expectancies, but particularly those having short ones

A critical appraisal of the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis on stereotactic body radiation therapy versus external beam radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and where we go from here

Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality for pain control in patients with bone metastases. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), which allows delivering a much higher dose per fraction while sparing critical structures compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT), has become more widely used, especially in the oligometastatic setting. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the pain response rate of SBRT and cEBRT for bone metastases have shown conflicting results, as have four recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses of these trials. Possible reasons for the different outcomes between these reviews include differences in methodology, which trials were included, and the endpoints examined and how they were defined. We suggest ways to improve analysis of these RCTs, particularly performing an individual patient-level meta-analysis since the trials included heterogeneous populations. The results of such studies will help guide future investigations needed to validate patient selection criteria, optimize SBRT dose schedules, include additional endpoints (such as the time to onset of pain response, durability of pain response, quality of life (QOL), and side effects of SBRT), and better assess the cost-effectiveness and trade-offs of SBRT compared to cEBRT. An international Delphi consensus to guide selection of optimal candidates for SBRT is warranted before more prospective data is available

Clinical Utility of the 12-Gene DCIS Score Assay: Impact on Radiotherapy Recommendations for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the results of the 12-gene DCIS Score assay on (i) radiotherapy recommendations for patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and (ii) patient decisional conflict and state anxiety. METHODS: Thirteen sites across the US enrolled patients (March 2014–August 2015) with pure DCIS undergoing BCS. Prospectively collected data included clinicopathologic factors, physician estimates of local recurrence risk, DCIS Score results, and pre-/post-assay radiotherapy recommendations for each patient made by a surgeon and a radiation oncologist. Patients completed pre-/post-assay decisional conflict scale and state-trait anxiety inventory instruments. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 127 patients: median age 60 years, 80 % postmenopausal, median size 8 mm (39 % ≤5 mm), 70 % grade 1/2, 88 % estrogen receptor-positive, 75 % progesterone receptor-positive, 54 % with comedo necrosis, and 18 % multifocal. Sixty-six percent of patients had low DCIS Score results, 20 % had intermediate DCIS Score results, and 14 % had high DCIS Score results; the median result was 21 (range 0–84). Pre-assay, surgeons and radiation oncologists recommended radiotherapy for 70.9 and 72.4 % of patients, respectively. Post-assay, 26.4 % of overall recommendations changed, including 30.7 and 22.0 % of recommendations by surgeons and radiation oncologists, respectively. Among patients with confirmed completed questionnaires (n = 32), decision conflict (p = 0.004) and state anxiety (p = 0.042) decreased significantly from pre- to post-assay. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized risk estimates from the DCIS Score assay provide valuable information to physicians and patients. Post-assay, in response to DCIS Score results, surgeons changed treatment recommendations more often than radiation oncologists. Further investigation is needed to better understand how such treatment changes may affect clinical outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5583-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users