Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is knowledge translation adequate? A quality assurance study of staging investigations in early stage breast cancer patients

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After primary surgery, patients diagnosed with early stage breast cancer undergo radiological investigations based on pathologic stage of disease to rule out distant metastases. Published guidelines can aid clinicians in determining which tests are appropriate based on stage of disease. We wished to assess the consistency of radiological staging in an academic community oncology setting with standard guidelines and to determine the overall impact of non-adherence to these guidelines. A retrospective cohort study was conducted for new breast cancer patients seen at a single institution between January 2009 and April 2010. Patients were included if initial diagnosis and primary surgery was at this institution. Pathologic stage and radiological tests completed were recorded. A literature review was performed and the results were compared with those from this study to determine overall adherence rates. Subsequently, a cost analysis was performed to determine the financial impact at this centre. 231 patients met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this study. A large proportion of patients were over-staged with 129 patients (55%) undergoing unnecessary investigations according to guidelines. Specifically, 59% of stage I patients and 58% of stage II patients were over-investigated. Distant metastases at the time of diagnosis were found in three patients, all of whom had stage III disease (1.3%). The literature reviewed revealed similar non-adherence rates in other centres. The estimated cost of such non-adherence is in the range of $78 (CDN) per new early stage breast cancer patient seen at this centre. This oncology centre has a low adherence to practice guidelines for staging investigations in breast cancer patients, with 55% of patients undergoing unnecessary tests. Very few patients had metastases at diagnosis, and all had pathological stage III disease. Efforts may need to focus on improving knowledge translation across clinical oncology settings to increase guideline adherence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Canadian Cancer Society’s Steering Committee (2009) Canadian Cancer Statistics 2009. Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto

  2. Myers RE, Johnston M, Pritchard K, Levine M, Oliver T, Breast Cancer Disease Site Group of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative (2001) Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline. CMAJ 164(10):1439–1444

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ravaioli A, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Tassinari D, Arcangeli V, Milandri C, Amadori D, Bravi M, Rossi D, Fattori PP, Pasquini E, Panzini I (2002) Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure. Breast Cancer Res Treat 72(1):53–60. doi:10.1023/A:1014900600815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Members of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group (2003) Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer. Practice guideline report #1-14. Cancer Care Ontario

  5. Simmons CE, Hogeveen S, Nichols J, Trudeau-Tavara S, Quan M (2010) Quality and consistency in breast cancer clinical guidelines internationally: are we globally consistent? J Clin Oncol 28:15s (abstr 6096)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Puglisi F, Follador A, Minisini AM, Cardellino GG, Russo S, Andreetta C, Di Terlizzi S, Piga A (2005) Baseline staging tests after a new diagnosis of breast cancer: further evidence of their limited indications. Ann Oncol 16(2):263–266. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi063

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. McWhirter E, Yogendran G, Wright F, Dranitsaris G, Clemons M (2007) Baseline radiological staging in primary breast cancer: impact of educational intervention on adherence to published guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract 13(4):647–650. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00804.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Singletary SA, Connolly JL (2006) Breast cancer staging: working with the sixth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. CA Cancer J Clin 56(1):37–47. doi:10.3322/canjclin.56.1.37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Samur M, Bozcuk HS, Karaveli Ş, Pestereli E, Özdoğan M, Yildiz M, Artaç M, Savaş B (2003) Reevaluation of baseline staging tests in breast cancer; what should be the standard? Turkish J 33(3):150–153

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schneider C, Fehr MK, Steiner RA, Hagen D, Haller U, Fink D (2003) Frequency and distribution pattern of distant metastases in breast cancer patients at the time of primary presentation. Arch Gynecol Obstet 269(1):9–12. doi:10.1007/s00404-002-0445-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abuzallouf S, Motawy M, Thotathil Z (2007) Baseline staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer–Kuwait cancer control centre experience. Med Princ Pract 16:22–24. doi:10.1159/000096135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morris PG, O’Connor M, O’Rafferty C, Sheikh R, Gray J, McDermott R, Boyle T, Kennedy MJ (2009) The excessive cost of baseline diagnostic imaging in early breast cancer. Ir Med J 102(5):149–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gandhi S, Alibhai S, Victor JC, Simmons C, Verma S (2010) The impact of resource setting and guidelines on global early breast cancer practice. 2010 Breast Cancer Symposium, Abstract 199. http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=100&abstractID=60376. Accessed 20 Aug 2011

  14. Ravaioli A, Tassinari D, Pasini G, Polselli A, Fattori PP, Pasquini E, Masi A, Alessandrini F, Canuti D, Panzini I, Drudi G (1998) Staging of breast cancer: what standards should be used in research and clinical practice? Ann Oncol 9(11):1173–1177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ma M, Bell J, Campbell S, Basnett I, Pollock A, Taylor I on behalf of the Clinical Advisory Panel (1997) Breast cancer management: is volume related to quality? Br J Cancer 75:1652–1659. doi:10.1038/bjc.1997.281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A (1997) Translating guidelines into practice. A systematic review of theoretical concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc J 157(4):408–416

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Håkonsen GD, Strelec P, Campbell D, Hudson S, Loennechen T (2008) Adherence to medication guideline criteria in cancer pain management. J Pain Symptom Manage 37(6):1006–1018. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dulko D, Hertz E, Julien J, Beck S, Mooney K (2010) Implementation of cancer pain guidelines by acute care nurse practitioner using an audit and feedback strategy. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 22(1):45–55. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2009.00469.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hematology and Oncology, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Dolly Han, Sophie Hogeveen, Miriam Sweet Goldstein, Christine Brezden-Masley, Rashida Haq & Christine E. Simmons

  2. CIBC Breast Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Miriam Sweet Goldstein

  3. Division of Surgery, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Ralph George

  4. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Jeffrey Hoch

Authors
  1. Dolly Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Hogeveen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miriam Sweet Goldstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralph George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christine Brezden-Masley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey Hoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rashida Haq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christine E. Simmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dolly Han or Christine E. Simmons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, D., Hogeveen, S., Sweet Goldstein, M. et al. Is knowledge translation adequate? A quality assurance study of staging investigations in early stage breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132, 1–7 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1786-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1786-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation