Development of quality indicators for treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast using a multidisciplinary Delphi process.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 248-248
Author(s):  
May Lynn Quan ◽  
William Ghali ◽  
Peter S. Craighead ◽  
Heather E. Bryant

248 Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast accounts for ~30% of new breast cancer diagnoses. Measuring quality of DCIS treatment is problematic due to its distinctively different clinical behaviour from invasive breast carcinoma, where standard outcomes such as mortality are not relevant. Therefore, we sought to develop clinically relevant quality indicators to evaluate treatment of DCIS. Methods: A Delphi consensus process was undertaken using a multidisciplinary panel of nine clinical and methodologic experts from Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Panel members were nominated based on membership in provincial breast tumour site groups. Four criteria for a good quality indicator were used; the indicator measures a treatment that benefits the patient, there is support from scientific literature or professional consensus for benefit; the indicator is under control of the health care provider, the indicator is extractable from the medical record. Candidate indicators were identified from published clinical practice guidelines in North America. Three iterations of ratings using Likert scale rankings were utilized to identify final quality indicators, which were then prioritized. Results: A total of 10 candidate indicators were identified from four clinical practice guidelines encompassing the diagnosis, surgery and adjuvant treatment components of DCIS. A total of eight indicators were identified and prioritized (Table). Conclusions: We successfully developed practical quality indicators for evaluating the treatment of DCIS, which can be used in any jurisdiction to measure key performance benchmarks and identify variations in care warranting intervention or improvement. [Table: see text]

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Ang Zheng ◽  
Zi-Ning Jin ◽  
Meng-Yao Cui ◽  
Bo Chen ◽  
Fan Yao ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. e23-e31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neill Patani ◽  
Yazan Khaled ◽  
Sara Al Reefy ◽  
Kefah Mokbel

Author(s):  
Fabio Mauri ◽  
Ilaria Follesa Vitillo ◽  
Emanuela Stochino Loi ◽  
Maurizio Nicola D’Alterio ◽  
Stefano Angioni ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Smeds ◽  
Fredrik Wärnberg ◽  
Torbjörn Norberg ◽  
Hans Nordgren ◽  
Lars Holmberg ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 784-791
Author(s):  
Harissa Husainy Hasbullah ◽  
Farah Wahida MdYusof ◽  
Amirah Hayati Ahmad ◽  
Omar Alzallal ◽  
Sharifah Emilia T. T Sharif

Prostate cancer is common in men, but tumour of the male breast is rare. For these two tumours to be presented synchronously in a male patient is even rarer. The focus of this paper is the case of a 72-year-old man diagnosed with papillary ductal carcinoma in situ after he presented with a unilateral breast mass associated with nipple discharge. Imaging staging for his breast tumour and subsequent prostate biopsy found an incidental synchronous asymptomatic prostate adenocarcinoma as well as bone metastases. He denies risk factors for malignancies and refuses genetic testing. The first part of our discussion will highlight the uncommon occurrence of male breast ductal carcinoma in situ and its management controversies. The subsequent part of our discussion will focus on the association between male breast cancer and prostate cancer, and implication of this on the future treatment of these patients. More importantly, our case will illustrate the challenges in managing dual primaries that present concurrently.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document