Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016

Open Access 01-10-2016 | Breast Oncology

Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely ® Initiative

Authors: Jeffrey Landercasper, MD, Lisa Bailey, MD, Tiffany S. Berry, MD, Robert R. Buras, MD, Amy C. Degnim, MD, Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, MD, Joshua Froman, MD, Jennifer Gass, MD, Caprice Greenberg, MD, Starr Koslow Mautner, MD, Helen Krontiras, MD, Roshni Rao, MD, Michelle Sowden, DO, Judy A. Tjoe, MD, Barbara Wexelman, MD, Lee Wilke, MD, Steven L. Chen, MD, MBA

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely ® Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged.

Methods

The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely ® Campaign. The resulting list of “appropriateness” measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below.

Results

(1) Don’t routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don’t routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don’t routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don’t routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don’t routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer.

Conclusions

The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely ® campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The state of cancer care in America, 2015: a report by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(2):79–113.CrossRef
4.
Hewitt M, Simone JV. Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999.
5.
Institute of Medicine. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013. doi:10.​17226/​18359.
6.
Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:626–34.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
9.
10.
Ramsey SD, Fedorenko C, Chauhan R, et al. Baseline estimates of adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely ® initiative among patients with cancer enrolled with a large regional commercial health insurer. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(4):338–43. doi:10.​1200/​JOP.​2014.​002717.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
13.
Hahn EE, Tang T, Lee JS, et al. Use of imaging for staging of early-stage breast cancer in two integrated health care systems: adherence with a choosing wisely recommendation. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(3):e320–8. doi:10.​1200/​JOP.​2014.​002998.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Crivello ML, Ruth K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Advanced imaging modalities in early stage breast cancer: preoperative use in the United States Medicare population. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:102–10.CrossRefPubMed
15.
In H, Jiang W, Lipsitz SR, et al. Variation in the utilization of reconstruction following mastectomy in elderly women. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1872–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Erickson FJ, Velasco JM, Hieken TJ. Adverse outcomes associated with noncompliance with melanoma treatment guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2395–402.CrossRef
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Berry, Leonard L. Discovering the Soul of Service: the nine drivers of sustainable business success. New York: The Free Press, a Division of Simon and Schuster, 1999.
23.
24.
25.
Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, et al. The Rand/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Arlington: RAND, 2001.
26.
Bilimoria KY, Raval MV, Bentrem DJ, Wayne JD, Balch CM, Ko CY. National assessment of melanoma care using formally developed quality indicators. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5445–51.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
29.
30.
Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(5):392–401.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET—randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):879–86.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and metaanalysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3248–58.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. A randomized clinical trial. Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00003855. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1829–34.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Augustovski F, Soto N, Caporale J, et al. Decision-making impact on adjuvant chemotherapy allocation in early node-negative breast cancer with a 21-gene assay: systematic review and metaanalysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(3):611–25. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-015-3483-3.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
42.
Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:704–16.CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717–30.CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
47.
Grimmer L, Liederbach E, Velasco J, Pesce C, Wang CH, Yao K. Variation in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates according to racial groups in young women with breast cancer, 1998 to 2011: a report from the National Cancer Data Base. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221(1):187–96. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jamcollsurg.​2015.​03.​033.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
50.
Giuliano AE, Boolbol S, Degnim AC, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology: position statement on prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2425–7.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Portschy PR, Abbott AM, Burke EE, et al. Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer risk: a prospective, longitudinal study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3846–52.CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
Mutter RW, Frost MH, Hoskin TL, Johnson JL, Hartmann LC, Boughey JC. Breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy (bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy), a clinical entity: presentation, management, and outcomes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(1):183–90. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-015-3515-z.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
56.
Fayanju MO, Mayo TL, Spinks TE, et al. Value-based breast cancer care: a multidisciplinary approach for defining patient-centered outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016. doi:10.​1245/​s10434-016-5184-5.
57.
58.
59.
Gebhardt BJ, Rajagopalan MS, Gill BS, et al. Impact of dynamic changes to a bone metastases pathway in a large, integrated, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center network. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(6):398–405. doi:10.​1016/​j.​prro.​2015.​06.​013.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely ® Initiative
Authors
Jeffrey Landercasper, MD
Lisa Bailey, MD
Tiffany S. Berry, MD
Robert R. Buras, MD
Amy C. Degnim, MD
Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, MD
Joshua Froman, MD
Jennifer Gass, MD
Caprice Greenberg, MD
Starr Koslow Mautner, MD
Helen Krontiras, MD
Roshni Rao, MD
Michelle Sowden, DO
Judy A. Tjoe, MD
Barbara Wexelman, MD
Lee Wilke, MD
Steven L. Chen, MD, MBA
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5327-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2016 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Ultrasound-Guided Segmental Mastectomy and Excisional Biopsy Using Hydrogel-Encapsulated Clip Localization as an Alternative to Wire Localization

Breast Oncology

Outcomes After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Literature Review

Breast Oncology

Dense Breasts: What Do Our Patients Need to Be Told and Why?

Breast Oncology

Assessing, Counseling, and Treating Patients at High Risk for Breast Cancer

Breast Oncology

Impact of Body Mass Index on Clinical Axillary Nodal Assessment in Breast Cancer Patients

Breast Oncology

Implementing the Prospective Surveillance Model (PSM) of Rehabilitation for Breast Cancer Patients with 1-Year Postoperative Follow-up, a Prospective, Observational Study