Selective preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in women with breast cancer: no reduction in the reoperation rate.

HYPOTHESIS: The use of preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may have an effect on the reoperation rate in women with operable breast cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: Women with operable breast cancer treated by a single surgeon between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. INTERVENTION: Selective preoperative MR imaging based on breast density and histologic findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation rate and pathologically avoidable mastectomy at initial operation. RESULTS: Of 313 patients in the study, 120 underwent preoperative MR imaging. Patients undergoing MR imaging were younger (mean age, 53.6 vs 59.5 years; P < .001), were more often of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (61.7% vs 52.3%, P < .05), and more likely had heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts (68.4% vs 22.3%, P < .001). The incidence of lobular carcinoma (8.3% in the MR imaging group vs 5.2% in the no MR imaging group, P = .27) and the type of surgery performed (mastectomy vs partial mastectomy, P = .67) were similar in both groups. The mean pathological size of the index tumor in the MR imaging group was larger than that in the no MR imaging group (2.02 vs 1.72 cm, P = .009), but the extent of disease was comparable (75.8% in the MR imaging group vs 82.9% in the no MR imaging group had pathologically localized disease, P = .26). The reoperation rate was similar between the 2 groups (19.1% in the MR imaging group vs 17.6% in the no MR imaging group, P = .91) even when stratified by breast density (P = .76), pT2 tumor size (P = .35), or lobular carcinoma histologic findings (P = .26). Pathologically avoidable mastectomy (multifocal or multicentric MR imaging and unifocal histopathological findings) was observed in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) with preoperative MR imaging who underwent mastectomy. CONCLUSION: The selective use of preoperative MR imaging to decrease reoperation in women with breast cancer is not supported by these data. In a considerable number of patients, MR imaging overestimates the extent of disease.

Patient navigation and the quality of breast cancer care: an analysis of the breast cancer care quality indicators.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation programs are initiated to help guide patients through barriers in a complex cancer care system. We sought to analyze the impact of our patient navigator program on the adherence to specific Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators (BCCQI). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with stage I-III breast cancer seen the calendar year prior to the initiation of the patient navigation program were compared with patients treated in the ensuing two calendar years. Quality indicators deemed appropriate for analysis were those associated with overcoming barriers to treatment and those associated with providing health education and improving patient decision-making. RESULTS: A total of 134 consecutive patients between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006 and 234 consecutive patients between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 were evaluated for compliance with the BCCQI. There was no significant difference in the mean age or race/ethnic distribution of the study population. In all ten BCCQI evaluated, there was improvement in the percentage of patients in compliance from pre and post implementation of a patient navigator program (range 2.5-27.0 %). Overall, compliance with BCCQI improved from 74.1 to 95.5 % (p < 0.0001). Indicators associated with informed decision-making and patient preference achieved statistical significance, while only completion axillary node dissection in sentinel node-positive biopsies in the process of treatment achieved statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a patient navigator program improved breast cancer care as measured by BCCQI. The impact on disease-free and overall survival remains to be determined.

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.