Cancer care coordinator: promoting multidisciplinary care--a pilot study in Australian general practice.

AIM: We hypothesised that patients treated for breast cancer would benefit from targeted therapeutic action delivered by general practitioners on the recommendations of a multidisciplinary team based in primary care. METHODS: Patients scheduled for follow-up visits at a hospital surgical clinic were invited to complete a self-administered care needs assessment and be interviewed by a breast care nurse. Members of the multidisciplinary team discussed the audio-recorded interviews within 2 weeks. The team made recommendations for each patient, which were presented to the general practitioner as a suggested 'care plan'. Health status information was collected via the Short Form 36 and Anxiety and Depression data via the Hospital anxiety and Depression Scale at recruitment and 3 months later. RESULTS: Among the 74 women who were invited to participate, 21 were recruited over a 6-month period (28%), 19 of whom completed the study (90%). The mean age was 55 years (range 38-61 years) and the mean time in follow-up was 23 months (range 16-38 months). The team identified a median of three problems per patient (range 2-7) and made an average of two recommendations per patient for referral to an allied health professional (range 0-5). At 3 months, 17 women had attended their general practitioner, 11 of whom felt their condition had improved as a result of the intervention. There was no significant change in Short Form 36 or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-based multidisciplinary review of treated breast cancer patients is feasible and, for most, results in benefit. However, only a minority of eligible patients participated in this pilot study and the logistics of organising the reviews warrants careful consideration.

Developing a self-administered questionnaire as a guide to consultations with women treated for breast cancer.

Background. Health professionals, including general practitioners involved in followup of breast cancer patients, need to systematically assess opportunities to offer patients support with ongoing or new problems. Methods. A self-administered needs assessment questionnaire was developed with reference to a multidisciplinary team. Short, evidence-based, readable questions were emphasized, and questions were tested for face validity. The questions flowed across three domains: physical, social, and psychological. Content validity and user friendliness were assessed. Results. A final set of 30 questions was rated as easy to read and comprehend (Flesch Reading Ease score 65.8 and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.9). When piloted with twenty-one patients the self-administered questionnaire detected 121 items of unmet need encompassing all three domains. Conclusions. This self-administered questionnaire has the potential to assist in the holistic assessment of breast cancer patient after treatment. The clinical value of the self-administered questionnaire will need to be further tested before it can be widely adopted.

A pilot study of trimodality breast imaging surveillance in young women at high risk of breast cancer in Western Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a surveillance program including clinical breast examination (CBE) and three screening modalities (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], high-resolution ultrasound [U/S] and mammographic x-ray [MMX]) was feasible, and whether it could improve detection of pathological lesions in young women at high risk of developing breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Western Australian women aged 50 years or under at high risk of developing breast cancer were recruited to our study. For a 2-year period, they were offered breast MRI and U/S scans in addition to their annual MMX and CBE. Our study was conducted between June 2002 and October 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and type of cancerous or precancerous lesions; recall rates after screening; comparative sensitivity of screening modalities. RESULTS: Of 102 women approached, 72 agreed to participate. Fifteen lesions were detected, of which three were significant: a metastatic papillary cancer in an axillary lymph node, a borderline lesion (multiple papillomatosis with atypia), and a papilloma. All 15 lesions were visible on MRI, and four were detected by MRI only. Only one lesion was visible on all three imaging modalities. Nothing significant was detected by CBE. The recall rate after MRI scans fell from 9/72 (12.5%) in the first year to 5/67 (7.5%) in the second year. CONCLUSION: Our study gave valuable experience in a team approach to screening MRI, and showed that MRI can detect more lesions than MMX or U/S in women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Screening U/S may not add value to MMX and MRI screening, and we suggest a single oblique-view MMX may be used in some cases.