ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Inflammatory breast cancer is a deadly and aggressive type of breast cancer. A key challenge relates to the need for a more detailed, formal, objective definition of IBC, the lack of which compromises clinical care, hampers the conduct of clinical trials, and hinders the search for IBC-specific biomarkers and treatments because of the heterogeneity of patients considered to have IBC. METHODS: Susan G. Komen, the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Milburn Foundation convened patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers to review the state of IBC and to propose initiatives to advance the field. After literature review of the defining clinical, pathologic, and imaging characteristics of IBC, the experts developed a novel quantitative scoring system for diagnosis. RESULTS: The experts identified through consensus several "defining characteristics" of IBC, including factors related to timing of onset and specific symptoms. These reflect common pathophysiologic changes, sometimes detectable on biopsy in the form of dermal lymphovascular tumor emboli and often reflected in imaging findings. Based on the importance and extent of these characteristics, the experts developed a scoring scale that yields a continuous score from 0 to 48 and proposed cut-points for categorization that can be tested in subsequent validation studies. CONCLUSION: To move beyond subjective 'clinical diagnosis' of IBC, we propose a quantitative scoring system to define IBC, based on clinical, pathologic, and imaging features. This system is intended to predict outcome and biology, guide treatment decisions and inclusion in clinical trials, and increase diagnostic accuracy to aid basic research; future validation studies are necessary to evaluate its performance.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Inflammatory Breast Neoplasms , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Female , Humans , Inflammatory Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Inflammatory Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Inflammatory Breast Neoplasms/therapyABSTRACT
Older women are under-represented in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials, and treatment guidelines are primarily based on BC studies in younger women. Studies uniformly report an increased incidence of local relapse with omission of breast radiation therapy. Review of the available literature suggests very low rates of distant relapse in women ≥70 years of age. The incremental benefit of endocrine therapy in decreasing rate of distant relapse and improving disease-free survival in older patients with low-risk BC remains unclear. Integration of molecular genomic assays in diagnosis and treatment of estrogen receptor positive BC presents an opportunity for optimizing risk-tailored adjuvant therapies in ways that may permit treatment de-escalation among older women with early-stage BC. The prevailing knowledge gap and lack of risk-specific adjuvant therapy guidelines suggests a compelling need for prospective trials to inform selection of optimal adjuvant therapy, including omission of adjuvant endocrine therapy in older women with low risk BC.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation has been evaluated in several prospective studies, resulting in wide acceptance of shorter treatment protocols for postoperative breast irradiation. Reimbursement for radiation therapy varies between private and public systems and between countries, impacting variably financial considerations in the use of hypofractionation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the financial impact of moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation by reimbursement system in different countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was designed by an international group of radiation oncologists. A web-questionnaire was distributed to representatives from each country. The participants were asked to involve the financial consultant at their institution. RESULTS: Data from 13 countries from all populated continents were collected (Europe: Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, UK; North America: Canada, USA; South America: Brazil; Africa: South Africa; Oceania: Australia; Asia: Israel, Taiwan). Clinicians and/or departments in most of the countries surveyed (77%) receive remuneration based on the number of fractions delivered to the patient. The financial loss per patient estimated resulting from applying moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation instead of conventional fractionation ranged from 5-10% to 30-40%, depending on the healthcare provider. CONCLUSION: Although a generalised adoption of moderately hypofractionated breast irradiation would allow for a considerable reduction in social and economic burden, the financial loss for the healthcare providers induced by fee-for-service remuneration may be a factor in the slow uptake of these regimens. Therefore, fee-for-service reimbursement may not be preferable for radiation oncology. We propose that an alternative system of remuneration, such as bundled payments based on stage and diagnosis, may provide more value for all stakeholders.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Radiation Dose Hypofractionation , Breast , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Dose Fractionation, Radiation , Female , Humans , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
AIMS: To document and explain self-reported practices of the radiotherapeutic management of breast cancer within different European regions. METHODS: An original survey questionnaire was developed to assess radiation oncologists' self-reported management of breast cancer. The questionnaire was distributed to physician members of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology. This paper presents the results of the comparative analysis of 702 responses from North America and 435 responses from Europe. RESULTS: Several areas of variation are identified. These include the selection criteria for post-mastectomy radiation and radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Variations are also seen in the management of regional lymph nodes after lumpectomy, and radiation dose and fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists within Europe vary in their self-reported practices for managing women with breast cancer. These differences may be rooted in deeper cultural differences and differences in the healthcare systems of different European countries. They may also reflect differences in the relative weight radiation oncologists place upon data generated within their own countries. These results support the need for co-operative group trials to provide evidence for more uniform treatment recommendations and policies.