Lessons learned from a yearlong deployment of customizable breast cancer tablet computers

Early-stage hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is the most common subtype and stage presenting in countries with organized screening programs. Standard clinical and pathologic factors are routinely used to support prognosis and decisions about adjuvant therapies. Hormone receptor and her2 status are essential for decision-making about the use of adjuvant hormonal and anti-her2 therapies respectively. Genomic assays are now commercially available to aid in either further prognostication or in refining the potential benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. The current genomic assays all generally quantify estrogen receptor and proliferation gene sets (among others) by rna expression, although the specific genes assayed are quite discordant. The present review focuses on the pivotal studies in which each assay attempted to demonstrate clinical utility, with an emphasis on prospective trial data for each assay, if available. Using genomic assays, health care providers will increasingly be able to individualize therapy or de-escalate therapy, optimizing clinic benefit while minimizing toxicities from systemic therapies.

Download Full-text

Lessons learned at SABCS 2019 and to-dos from immunotherapy in breast cancer

ESMO Open ◽

10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000688 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. e000688

Author(s):

Daniel Eiger ◽

Mariana Brandão ◽

Evandro de Azambuja

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Lessons Learned

Download Full-text

Cultural Broker or Collaborator?: Lessons Learned from Breast Cancer Survivor Groups in Eastern North Carolina

Practicing Anthropology ◽

10.17730/praa.36.1.b06762g8025n7165 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 36 (1) ◽

pp. 16-20

Author(s):

Holly Mathews

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

North Carolina ◽

Educational Programs ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Frames Of Reference ◽

Cultural Brokers ◽

Treatment Services ◽

Funding Agencies ◽

Health Initiatives ◽

Eastern North Carolina

Medical anthropologists often act as cultural brokers for client groups by representing and explaining their interests to professionals in order to negotiate better access to care, improvements in screening and treatment services, and greater availability of educational programs. In these contexts, the anthropologist is in a position of power relative to clients, who are assumed to be unable to represent themselves as effectively as the advocate can. Attempts to broker in the reverse occur much less frequently. Yet the need for anthropologists to explain the assumptions and priorities of policymakers and funding agencies to clients is equally important, and doing so can shift the frames of reference for both parties, fostering the possibility for true collaboration in community health initiatives.

Download Full-text