American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 Update of the Breast Cancer Follow-Up and Management Guidelines in the Adjuvant Setting

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (31) ◽  
pp. 5091-5097 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Khatcheressian ◽  
Antonio C. Wolff ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Eva Grunfeld ◽  
Hyman B. Muss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Adjuvant Setting ◽  
Positron Emission ◽  
American Society ◽  
Careful History

PurposeTo update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionCareful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.

Breast Cancer Follow-Up and Management After Primary Treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 961-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Khatcheressian ◽  
Patricia Hurley ◽  
Elissa Bantug ◽  
Laura J. Esserman ◽  
Eva Grunfeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Primary Therapy ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Positron Emission ◽  
American Society

Purpose To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent. Methods To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating. Results There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted. Recommendations Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical 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 women 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. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 Update of Recommended Breast Cancer Surveillance Guidelines

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 1080-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Nancy E. Davidson ◽  
David V. Schapira ◽  
Eva Grunfeld ◽  
Hyman B. Muss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Surveillance Strategy ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Services Research ◽  
American Society

OBJECTIVE: To determine an effective, evidence-based, postoperative surveillance strategy for the detection and treatment of recurrent breast cancer. Tests are recommended only if they have an impact on the outcomes specified by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for clinical practice guidelines. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: All tests described in the literature for postoperative monitoring were considered. In addition, the data were critically evaluated to determine the optimal frequency of monitoring. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include overall and disease-free survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and secondarily cost-effectiveness. EVIDENCE: A search was performed to determine all relevant articles published over the past 20 years on the efficacy of surveillance testing for breast cancer recurrence. These publications comprised both retrospective and prospective studies. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The possible consequences of false-positive and -negative tests were considered in evaluating a preference for one of two tests providing similar information. Cost alone was not a determining factor. RECOMMENDATIONS: The attached guidelines and text summarize the updated recommendations of the ASCO breast cancer expert panel. Data are sufficient to recommend monthly breast self-examination, annual mammography of the preserved and contralateral breast, and a careful history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for 3 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 2 years, then annually. Data are not sufficient to recommend routine bone scans, chest radiographs, hematologic blood counts, tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen [CA] 15-5, and CA 27.29), liver ultrasonograms, or computed tomography scans. VALIDATION: The recommendations of the breast cancer expert panel were evaluated and supported by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee reviewers and the ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR: American Society of Clinical Oncology.

scholarly journals Impact of the 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists HER2 Guideline Updates on HER2 Assessment in Breast Cancer With Equivocal HER2 Immunohistochemistry Results With Focus on Cases With HER2/CEP17 Ratio <2.0 and Average HER2 Copy Number ≥4.0 and <6.0

2019 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. 597-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raza S. Hoda ◽  
Edi Brogi ◽  
Jin Xu ◽  
Katia Ventura ◽  
Dara S. Ross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Copy Number ◽  
Her2 Overexpression ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
American Society ◽  
Dual Probe

Context.— The American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists HER2 testing guideline in breast cancer was updated in 2018 to address issues on interpretation of uncommon results using dual-probe in situ hybridization according to the 2013 guideline. Objective.— To assess impact of the 2018 guideline on breast cancer with equivocal HER2 immunohistochemistry results. Design.— We retrospectively reviewed HER2 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) data (HER2/CEP17 ratio and average HER2 copy number per cell) of HER2 immunohistochemistry–equivocal (2+ or 1+ to 2+) breast cancers at our center between January 2014 and May 2018 and compared HER2 FISH results according to 2013 and 2018 guidelines. Results.— A total of 1666 HER2 FISH results from 1421 patients with equivocal HER2 immunohistochemistry were reviewed. Based on the 2013 guideline, HER2 FISH results were amplified in 346 cases (20.8%), equivocal in 242 (14.5%), and nonamplified in 1078 (64.7%). Using the 2018 guideline, 258 cases (16%) were reclassified, including 242 previously equivocal test results (15%) and 16 previously positive results (1%) reclassified as negative. The subset of 2013 HER2-equivocal and 2018 HER2-nonamplified cases with HER2/CEP17 ratio lower than 2.0 and average HER2 copy number 4.0 or higher and lower than 6.0 showed higher incidence of micropapillary morphology compared with HER2-amplified cases. Despite most patients in this group not receiving HER2-targeted treatment, 96% had no evidence of disease at follow-up. Conclusions.— The 2018 guideline eliminated HER2 FISH–equivocal cases by reclassifying HER2-equivocal cases and cases with nonclassical amplification without HER2 overexpression as HER2 negative. As a consequence, we observed a considerable increase in HER2 FISH–negative cases and a slight decrease in HER2 FISH–positive cases.

An evaluation of clinical follow-up in women with early stage breast cancer among physician members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Simon ◽  
Michael Hoff ◽  
Mohamed Hussein ◽  
Silvana Martino ◽  
Alexander Walt
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Stage Breast Cancer ◽  
American Society

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (14) ◽  
pp. 1507-1515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meena S. Moran ◽  
Stuart J. Schnitt ◽  
Armando E. Giuliano ◽  
Jay R. Harris ◽  
Seema A. Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Invasive Breast Cancer ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Margin Width ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
American Society

Purpose Controversy exists regarding the optimal margin width in breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer. Methods A multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 33 studies including 28,162 patients as the primary evidence base for consensus. Results Positive margins (ink on invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ) are associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of IBTR compared with negative margins. This increased risk is not mitigated by favorable biology, endocrine therapy, or a radiation boost. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease the rate of IBTR compared with no ink on tumor. There is no evidence that more widely clear margins reduce IBTR for young patients or for those with unfavorable biology, lobular cancers, or cancers with an extensive intraductal component. Conclusion The use of no ink on tumor as the standard for an adequate margin in invasive cancer in the era of multidisciplinary therapy is associated with low rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. J Clin Oncol 32. 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology®, American Society for Radiation Oncology®, and Society of Surgical Oncology®. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

scholarly journals American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn D. Runowicz ◽  
Corinne R. Leach ◽  
N. Lynn Henry ◽  
Karen S. Henry ◽  
Heather T. Mackey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
American Cancer Society ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
American Society

The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1,073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Copyright © 2015 American Cancer Society and American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Cancer Society or the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline on the Role of Bisphosphonates in Breast Cancer

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 1378-1391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce E. Hillner ◽  
James N. Ingle ◽  
James R. Berenson ◽  
Nora A. Janjan ◽  
Kathy S. Albain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Spinal Cord Compression ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Cord Compression ◽  
Adjuvant Setting ◽  
American Society ◽  
Substantial Decline

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient’s general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document