Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2015

01-10-2015 | Breast Oncology

The Influence of Radiology Image Consultation in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Patients

Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory, MD, Katya Losk, MPH, Nancy U. Lin, MD, Yasuaki Sagara, MD, Robyn L. Birdwell, MD, Linda Cutone, Kristen Camuso, MPH, Craig Bunnell, MD, MPH, MBA, Fatih Aydogan, MD, Mehra Golshan, MD, FACS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients’ ultimate surgical management.

Methods

Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results.

Results

Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9 % were female; 23.5 % (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5 % (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7 % (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8 % (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7 % (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5 % (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery.

Conclusions

Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7 % (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.
Literature
1.
go back to reference DeSantis C, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA. 2014;64(4):252–71.PubMed DeSantis C, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA. 2014;64(4):252–71.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Improving the 21st-century health care system-six aims for improvement. In: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. p. 53–4. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Improving the 21st-century health care system-six aims for improvement. In: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. p. 53–4.
3.
go back to reference Golshan M, Losk K, Kadish S, et al. Understanding process-of-care delays in surgical treatment of breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148(1):125–33.CrossRefPubMed Golshan M, Losk K, Kadish S, et al. Understanding process-of-care delays in surgical treatment of breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148(1):125–33.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Taylor C, Shwebridge A, Harris J, Green JS. Benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Targets Ther. 2013;5:79–85.CrossRef Taylor C, Shwebridge A, Harris J, Green JS. Benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Targets Ther. 2013;5:79–85.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Golshan M, Greenberg CC. Commentary on “Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board.” Am J Hematol Oncol. 2007;6(7)13–4. Golshan M, Greenberg CC. Commentary on “Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board.” Am J Hematol Oncol. 2007;6(7)13–4.
6.
go back to reference Geller BM, Nelson HD, Carney PA, et al. Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice, and perception. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:1–6.CrossRef Geller BM, Nelson HD, Carney PA, et al. Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice, and perception. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:1–6.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, et al. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:982–7.CrossRefPubMed Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, et al. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:982–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The Impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management. Cancer. 2001;91(7):1231–7.CrossRefPubMed Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The Impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management. Cancer. 2001;91(7):1231–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Newman EA; Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidsciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;207(10):2346–51.CrossRef Newman EA; Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidsciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006;207(10):2346–51.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(2):209–13.CrossRefPubMed Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(2):209–13.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Jackson SL, Taplin SH, Sickles EA. Variability of interpreteive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:814–27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Jackson SL, Taplin SH, Sickles EA. Variability of interpreteive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:814–27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameteres for screenign and disgnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;224:861–9.CrossRefPubMed Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameteres for screenign and disgnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;224:861–9.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, et al. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1493–9.CrossRefPubMed Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, et al. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1493–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Influence of Radiology Image Consultation in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Patients
Authors
Melissa Anne Mallory, MD
Katya Losk, MPH
Nancy U. Lin, MD
Yasuaki Sagara, MD
Robyn L. Birdwell, MD
Linda Cutone
Kristen Camuso, MPH
Craig Bunnell, MD, MPH, MBA
Fatih Aydogan, MD
Mehra Golshan, MD, FACS
Publication date
01-10-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4663-4

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2015 Go to the issue