American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 12/2006; 24(31):5091-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8575
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting.
An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design.
The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.
Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.

  • Biomarkers in Medicine 03/2015; 9(4):303-6. DOI:10.2217/bmm.15.7 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004-2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors' self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7-12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors' self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 04/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study is a clinical pilot study with the principal aim to investigate the accuracy of a panel of serum tumor markers for the early diagnosis of relapses. We propose a systematic use of serum CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumor marker panel and criteria in order to make it an accurate tool for a postoperative breast cancer monitoring. 204 disease free breast cancer patients after mastectomy were intensively monitored with serial serum determination of CEA, CA15.3 and TPA. During a mean follow-up of 3.7 years the sensitivity of the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumor marker panel was 93%, the specificity was 97.6% and the rate of false 'warning signals' per year of follow-up was 9 per 100 patients. Our results show that the proposed tool is promising for a postoperative monitoring of breast cancer patients.
    Biomarkers in Medicine 03/2015; 9(4):307-17. DOI:10.2217/bmm.15.6 · 2.86 Impact Factor