ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Use of the neoadjuvant approach to treat breast cancer patients has increased since the early 2000s, but the overall pathway of care for such patients can be highly variable. The aim of our project was to establish a multidisciplinary consensus among clinicians with expertise in neoadjuvant therapy (nat) for breast cancer and to determine if that consensus reflects published methods used in randomized controlled trials (rcts) in this area. METHODS: A modified Delphi protocol, which used iterative surveys administered to 85 experts across Canada, was established to obtain expert consensus concerning all aspects of the care pathway for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer. All rcts published between January 1, 1967, and December 1, 2012, were systematically reviewed. Data extracted from the rcts were analyzed to determine if the methods used matched the expert consensus for specific areas of nat management. A scoring system determined the strength of the agreement between the literature and the expert consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all areas of the pathway of care for patients undergoing nat for breast cancer, with the exception of the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-treatment or preoperative setting. The levels of agreement between the consensus statements and the published rcts varied, primarily because specific aspects of the pathway of care were not well described in the reviewed literature. CONCLUSIONS: A true consensus of expert opinion concerning the pathway of care appropriate for patients receiving nat for breast cancer has been achieved. A review of the literature illuminated gaps in the evidence about some elements of nat management. Where evidence is available, agreement with expert opinion is strong overall. Our study is unique in its approach to establishing consensus among medical experts in this field and has established a pathway of care that can be applied in practice for patients receiving nat.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines are used in health care systems throughout the world to aid in treatment decisions and to ensure quality and consistency in patient care. In breast oncology, guidelines for care are published by several internationally recognized organizations, including those from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The present study compared clinical breast cancer guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, United States), Cancer Care Ontario (CCO, Canada), and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, United Kingdom) to determine the quality and consistency of content across international organizations. METHODS: We searched for breast cancer guidelines published by ASCO, CCO, and NICE. Guidelines on the same theme were identified across organizations and appraised by 4 independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Content of each guideline was also scored for consistency in overall recommendations across organizations and for consistency in cited evidence. RESULTS: The quality of breast cancer guidelines produced by the targeted organizations was consistently good in the areas of Scope and Purpose, Rigor of Development, and Clarity and Presentation, but variable in the domains of Stakeholder Involvement, Applicability, and Editorial Independence. The content of the guidelines varied slightly in the strength of their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated consistency in quality and content for breast cancer practice guidelines published by various organizations. Future guidelines developed by these organizations should focus on how to implement and measure uptake of a guideline.
