Benjamin O. Anderson
Benjamin O. Anderson
Benjamin O. Anderson and Robert W. Carlson
Breast cancer is an increasingly urgent problem in low- and mid-level resource regions of the world. Despite knowing the optimal management strategy based on guidelines developed in wealthy countries, clinicians are forced to provide less-than-optimal care when diagnostic or treatment resources are lacking. For this reason, it is important to identify which resources most effectively fill health care needs in limited-resource regions, where patients commonly present with more advanced disease at diagnosis, and to provide guidance on how new resource allocations should be made to maximize improvement in outcome. Established in 2002, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) created an international health alliance to develop evidence-based guidelines for countries with limited resources to improve breast health outcomes. The BHGI serves as a program for international guideline development and as a hub for linkage among clinicians, governmental health agencies, and advocacy groups to translate guidelines into policy and practice. The BHGI collaborated with 12 national and international health organizations, cancer societies, and nongovernmental organizations to host 2 BHGI international summits. The evidence-based BHGI guidelines, developed at the 2002 Global Summit, were published in 2003 as a theoretical treatise on international breast health care. These guidelines were then updated and expanded at the 2005 Global Summit into a fully comprehensive and flexible framework to permit incremental improvements in health care delivery, based on outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of health care services.
Presenters: Benjamin O. Anderson and Janice A. Lyons
Locoregional management of early-stage breast cancer has been trending toward less-extensive axillary resections, based on increasing evidence showing that patients with 1 or 2 positive sentinel nodes and/or micrometastases can safely be managed with sentinel node biopsy alone, thereby avoiding complete axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in the significant majority of patients. Because of the 15% to 20% lymphedema risk associated with cALND, increasing efforts are being made to avoid the procedure when evidence suggests that more limited procedures are safe, as reflected by acceptable locoregional recurrence rates. Axillary radiotherapy (RT) has been shown to be an effective alternative to ALND for patients fitting criteria from the pivotal AMAROS trial: patients with T1/T2 disease and are clinically node-negative, who undergo either breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy. Considerations for RT begin with the question of nodal involvement, with treatment planned accordingly. With more neoadjuvant therapy being used, there are nuances in locoregional management that clinicians must now appreciate, both in terms of ALND and axillary RT.
Benjamin O. Anderson, Kristine E. Calhoun, and Eric L. Rosen
Lobular neoplasia broadly defines the spectrum of changes within the lobule, ranging from atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) to lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). This continuum of lesions is associated with an increased risk for developing subsequent invasive breast cancer, with the magnitude of that risk corresponding to the degree of proliferative change. The associated risk for developing invasive breast cancer after a diagnosis of lobular neoplasia is multicentric, bilateral, and equal in both breasts. Lobular neoplasia itself may transform into invasive carcinoma, although the frequency of this occurrence is unknown. Thus, lobular neoplasia is a risk factor for invasive breast cancer and may be a precursor lesion in unusual circumstances. The management of ALH and LCIS depends on the setting in which they are encountered. When ALH and LCIS are diagnosed after core needle breast biopsy, wire localization for surgical excision is required for definitive diagnosis because rates of histologic underestimation approach those of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). When diagnosed on surgical biopsy, ALH and LCIS generally do not require further intervention, even when present at a surgical margin. However, bilateral breast cancer risk must be considered, especially when patients have a family history of breast cancer. In selected situations, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy with or without reconstruction may be considered when atypical hyperplasia or LCIS is diagnosed. Although this reduces risk for developing subsequent breast carcinoma by 90%, patients selected for prophylactic mastectomy represent a small subgroup of lobular neoplasia patients and generally have other risk factors, such as strong family history or evidence of genetic predisposition.
Sara H. Javid, L. Christine Fang, Larissa Korde, and Benjamin O. Anderson
Constance D. Lehman, Wendy DeMartini, Benjamin O. Anderson, and Stephen B. Edge
Edited by Kerrin G. Robinson
Use of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer has increased significantly over the past 10 years because of its well-documented high sensitivity for detecting otherwise occult breast cancer in the affected and contralateral breasts. However, published research reports on the impact of this improved cancer detection are limited. Equally important are growing concerns that the quality of breast MRI may vary significantly across practice sites, and therefore the published value of MRI may not be achieved for many patients. This article describes the peer-reviewed, published clinical research trials evaluating breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer on which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) practice guidelines are based. The current NCCN guidelines recommend that breast MRI be considered for patients with a newly diagnosed breast cancer to evaluate the extent of ipsilateral disease and to screen the contralateral breast, particularly for women at increased risk for mammographically occult disease. In addition, the guidelines indicate that breast MRI may be used for patients with axillary nodal adenocarcinoma to identify the primary malignancy. The guidelines stress the importance of having proper equipment, imaging technique, and provider training necessary to achieve high-quality breast MRI, and emphasize that MRI practice sites should have the ability to perform MRI-guided biopsy or needle localization. In addition to describing the data regarding use of breast MRI in women with newly diagnosed cancer, this article provides recommendations for the performance of high-quality breast MRI and suggestions for future research.
Robert W. Carlson, Jonathan K. Larsen, Joan McClure, C. Lyn Fitzgerald, Alan P. Venook, Al B. Benson III, and Benjamin O. Anderson
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) are evidence- and consensus-based clinical practice guidelines addressing malignancies that affect more than 97% of all patients with cancer in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines are used extensively in the United States and globally. Use of the guidelines outside the United States has driven the need to adapt the guidelines based on local, regional, or national resources. The NCCN Guidelines Panels created, vetted, and continually update the NCCN Guidelines based on published scientific data on cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy. The guidelines are developed within the context of commonly available resources, methods of payment, societal and cultural expectations, and governmental regulations as they exist in the United States. Although many of the cancer management recommendations contained in the NCCN Guidelines apply broadly from a global perspective, not all do. Disparities in availability and access to health care exist among countries, within countries, and among different social groups in the same country, especially regarding resources for cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. In addition, different drug approval and payment processes result in regional variation in availability of and access to cancer treatment, especially highly expensive agents and radiation therapy. Differences in cancer risk, predictive biomarker expression, and pharmacogenetics exist across ethnic and racial groups, and therefore across geographic locations. Cultural and societal expectations and requirements may also require modification of NCCN Guidelines for use outside the United States. This article describes the adaptation process, using the recent Latin American adaptation of the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer as an example.
Robert W. Carlson, Jillian L. Scavone, Wui-Jin Koh, Joan S. McClure, Benjamin E. Greer, Rashmi Kumar, Nicole R. McMillian, and Benjamin O. Anderson
More than 14 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million cancer deaths are estimated to occur worldwide on an annual basis. Of these, 57% of new cancer cases and 65% of cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Disparities in available resources for health care are enormous and staggering. The WHO estimates that the United States and Canada have 10% of the global burden of disease, 37% of the world's health workers, and more than 50% of the world's financial resources for health; by contrast, the African region has 24% of the global burden of disease, 3% of health workers, and less than 1% of the world's financial resources for health. This disparity is even more extreme with cancer. NCCN has developed a framework for stratifying the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) to help health care systems in providing optimal care for patients with cancer with varying available resources. This framework is modified from a method developed by the Breast Health Global Initiative. The NCCN Framework for Resource Stratification (NCCN Framework) identifies 4 resource environments: basic resources, core resources, enhanced resources, and NCCN Guidelines, and presents the recommendations in a graphic format that always maintains the context of the NCCN Guidelines. This article describes the rationale for resource-stratified guidelines and the methodology for developing the NCCN Framework, using a portion of the NCCN Cervical Cancer Guideline as an example.