» Articles » PMID: 23889950

Quality of Post-treatment Surveillance of Early Stage Breast Cancer in Texas

Overview
Journal Surgery
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2013 Jul 30
PMID 23889950
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Only annual mammography and physical examination are recommended for the post-treatment surveillance of early stage breast cancer.

Methods: We used Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare linked data (2001-2007) to identify physician visits and use of mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) CT in patients ≥ 66 years old with ductal carcinoma in situ and stage I-III ductal carcinoma who underwent curative-intent operations. We also evaluated the trends in use of recommended and nonrecommended tests.

Results: We identified 8,598 patients with resected ductal carcinoma in situ (37.3%) or invasive ductal cancer (62.7%). Breast-conserving therapy was performed in 59%. Only 55% saw a physician twice a year for 2 years and underwent annual mammography for 2 consecutive years in the surveillance period. Mammography use decreased from 81% in 2001 to 75% in 2007 (P < .0001), and breast MRI use rose from 0.5% to 7.0% (P < .0001). For asymptomatic patients, the use of CT/MRI of the abdomen, chest, and head was 27%, 23%, and 22%, and this slightly increased during the study period. There was a significant increase in PET/PET CT use, from 2% in 2001 to 9% in 2007 (P < .0001). There was a concomitant decrease in bone scan use from 21% in 2001 to 13% in 2007 (P < .0001).

Conclusion: Adherence to evidence-based guidelines has been substandard and the use of nonrecommended tests has persisted over the study period. The rise in PET use and attendant decrease in bone scan implicates a population receiving PET scan in lieu of bone scan for surveillance of asymptomatic metastatic disease. In an elderly population of breast cancer patients in Texas, these findings imply both underuse and overuse.

Citing Articles

Surveillance for Distant Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Contemporary Management: A Report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society Survivor Research Group.

Cheun J, Chung S, Han J, Lee Y, Jung J, Chun J Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 31(10):6774-6785.

PMID: 38969851 PMC: 11413078. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15665-3.


Racial/ethnic disparities in use of surveillance mammogram among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review.

Advani P, Advani S, Nayak P, VonVille H, Diamond P, Burnett J J Cancer Surviv. 2021; 16(3):514-530.

PMID: 33982233 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-021-01046-2.


The lingering mysteries of metastatic recurrence in breast cancer.

Riggio A, Varley K, Welm A Br J Cancer. 2020; 124(1):13-26.

PMID: 33239679 PMC: 7782773. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-01161-4.


Use of Breast Imaging After Treatment for Locoregional Breast Cancer (AFT-01).

Adesoye T, Schumacher J, Neuman H, Edge S, McKellar D, Winchester D Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(6):1502-1511.

PMID: 29450753 PMC: 6925599. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6359-z.


Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Baxi S, Kale M, Keyhani S, Roman B, Yang A, DeRosa A Med Care. 2017; 55(7):723-733.

PMID: 28498197 PMC: 5494971. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000734.


References
1.
Robertson C, Ragupathy S, Boachie C, Fraser C, Heys S, MacLennan G . Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21(12):2484-91. PMC: 3217137. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2226-z. View

2.
Khatcheressian J, Wolff A, Smith T, Grunfeld E, Muss H, Vogel V . American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(31):5091-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8575. View

3.
Lu W, Jansen L, Post W, Bonnema J, Van de Velde J, de Bock G . Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 114(3):403-12. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-0023-4. View

4.
Wickerham L, Fisher B, Cronin W . The efficacy of bone scanning in the follow-up of patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1984; 4(4):303-7. DOI: 10.1007/BF01806043. View

5.
Montgomery D, Krupa K, Cooke T . Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97(12):1632-41. PMC: 2360278. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604065. View