Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging Comparative Effectiveness Research to Improve the Quality of Multidisciplinary Care for Breast Cancer Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Effectiveness in Surgical Oncology

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 164))

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women. To date, the use of efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in breast cancer have resulted in dramatic improvements in oncologic outcomes for this disease. However, not every question pertinent to breast cancer is amenable to such efficacy trials. This chapter will discuss some of the unique aspects of breast cancer that make efficacy RCTs challenging and/or impractical, how comparative effectiveness research can be used to address these issues, and identify several key questions which would benefit from ongoing comparative effectiveness research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fleissig A, Fallowfield LJ, Langridge CI et al (2006) Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95:279–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Segal R, Evans W, Johnson D et al (2001) Structured exercise improves physical functioning in women with stages I and II breast cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 19(3):657–665

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR et al (2010) Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol 102:111–118

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds) (2013) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2010, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/, based on November 2012 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2013

  5. Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC et al (1993) Surgical resection and radiolocation of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 2(6):335–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giuliano EA, Kirgan DM, Guenter JM et al (2010) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 252(3):426–432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB et al (2010) Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 11:927–933

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rescigno J, Zampell JC, Axelrod D (2009) Patterns of axillary surgical care for breast cancer in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 16(3):687–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P et al (2010) Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases. The american college of surgeons oncology group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg 252(3):426–432; discussion 432–433

    Google Scholar 

  10. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman K et al (2011) Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. A randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc 305(6):569–575

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Berry D (2004) Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women 70 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(10):971–977

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:1233–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT et al (2008) Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: patient perceptions and precautionary behaviors. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5220–5226

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM et al (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:345–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Nalk A et al (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 151:727–737

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerlikowske K (1997) Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:79–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A et al (2011) Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 155:10–20

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Soeteman DI, Stout NK, Ozanne EM et al (2013) Modeling the effectiveness of initial management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):774–781

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith BD, Haffty BG, Buchholz TA et al (2006) Effectiveness of radiation therapy in older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(18):1302–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Network NCC (2013) NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology breast cancer version 3.2013. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2013

  21. Dunne C, Burke JP, Morrow M et al (2009) Effect of margin status on local recurrence after breast conservation and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 27(10):1615–1620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rutgers EJ, Donker M, Straver ME et al (2013) Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer patients: final analysis of the EORTC AMAROS trial (10981/22023). ASCO meeting abstracts

    Google Scholar 

  23. From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition (2005) N. R. Council (ed). Institute of Medicine, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Neuman HB, Weiss JM, Schrag D et al (2013) Patient demographic and tumor characteristics influencing oncologist follow-up frequency in older breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol 20(13):4128–4136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maskarinec G, Sen C, Koga K et al (2011) Ethnic differences in breast cancer survival: status and determinants. Women’s Health 7(6):677–687

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA

    Lane L. Frasier, Caprice C. Greenberg & Heather B. Neuman

Authors
  1. Lane L. Frasier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caprice C. Greenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather B. Neuman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lane L. Frasier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Karl Y. Bilimoria

  2. Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Christina A. Minami

  3. Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    David M. Mahvi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Frasier, L.L., Greenberg, C.C., Neuman, H.B. (2015). Leveraging Comparative Effectiveness Research to Improve the Quality of Multidisciplinary Care for Breast Cancer Patients. In: Bilimoria, K., Minami, C., Mahvi, D. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness in Surgical Oncology. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 164. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12553-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12553-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12552-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12553-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation