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, [(18)F]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.

In women at increased risk of BC age ≥ 35 years, tamoxifen (20 mg per day for 5 years) should be discussed as an option to reduce the risk of estrogen receptor (ER) -positive BC. In postmenopausal women, raloxifene (60 mg per day for 5 years) and exemestane (25 mg per day for 5 years) should also be discussed as options for BC risk reduction. Those at increased BC risk are defined as individuals with a 5-year projected absolute risk of BC ≥ 1.66% (based on the National Cancer Institute BC Risk Assessment Tool or an equivalent measure) or women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Use of other selective ER modulators or other aromatase inhibitors to lower BC risk is not recommended outside of a clinical trial. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the option of chemoprevention among women at increased BC risk. The discussion should include the specific risks and benefits associated with each chemopreventive agent.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient-centered care by using PRO research results (“group-level data”) to inform decision making and by monitoring individual patient’s PROs (“individual-level data”) to inform care. We investigated the interpretability of current PRO data presentation formats. Method This cross-sectional mixed-methods study randomized purposively sampled cancer patients and clinicians to evaluate six group-data or four individual-data formats. A self-directed exercise assessed participants’ interpretation accuracy and ratings of ease-of-understanding and usefulness (0 = least to 10 = most) of each format. Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored helpful and confusing format attributes. Results We reached thematic saturation with 50 patients (44 % < college graduate) and 20 clinicians. For group-level data, patients rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 8.0; 33 % selected for easiest to understand/most useful) and clinicians rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 9.0, 8.5) but most often selected line graphs with confidence limits or norms (30 % for each format for easiest to understand/most useful). Qualitative results support that clinicians value confidence intervals, norms, and p values, but patients find them confusing. For individual-level data, both patients and clinicians rated line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding (median 8.0 patients, 8.5 clinicians) and usefulness (median 8.0, 9.0) and selected them as easiest to understand (50, 70 %) and most useful (62, 80 %). The qualitative interviews supported highlighting scores requiring clinical attention and providing reference values. Conclusions This study has identified preferences and opportunities for improving on current formats for PRO presentation and will inform development of best practices for PRO presentation. Both patients and clinicians prefer line graphs across group-level data and individual-level data formats, but clinicians prefer greater detail (e.g., statistical details) for group-level data.

PURPOSE To update the ASCO guideline on pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction and provide guidance on clinical issues that arise when deciding to use endocrine therapy for breast cancer risk reduction. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies. RESULTS A randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of anastrozole for reduction of estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer provided the predominant basis for the update. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS In postmenopausal women at increased risk, the choice of endocrine therapy now includes anastrozole (1 mg/day) in addition to exemestane (25 mg/day), raloxifene (60 mg/day), or tamoxifen (20 mg/day). The decision regarding choice of endocrine therapy should take into consideration age, baseline comorbidities, and adverse effect profiles. Clinicians should not prescribe anastrozole, exemestane, or raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction to premenopausal women. Tamoxifen 20 mg/day for 5 years is still considered standard of care for risk reduction in premenopausal women who are at least 35 years old and have completed childbearing. Data on low-dose tamoxifen as an alternative to the standard dose for both pre- and postmenopausal women with intraepithelial neoplasia are discussed in the Clinical Considerations section of this article. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Patient-centered care is an important aspect of high-quality care. Health informatics, particularly advances in technology, has the potential to facilitate, or detract from, patient-centered cancer care. Informatics can provide a mechanism for patients to provide their clinician(s) with critical information, and to share information with family, friends, and other patients. This information may enable patients to exert greater control over their own care. Clinicians may use information systems (e.g., electronic medical records) to coordinate care and share information with other clinicians. Patients and clinicians may use communication tools and information resources to interact with one another in new ways. Caution in using new information resources is warranted to avoid reliance on biased or inappropriate data, and clinicians may need to direct patients to appropriate information resources. Perhaps the greatest challenge for both patients and providers is identifying information that is high-quality and which enhances (and does not impede) their interactions.

Purpose Breast cancer patients commonly experience sexual concerns, yet rarely discuss them with clinicians. The study examined patient and provider experiences and preferences related to communication about breast cancer-related sexual concerns with the goal of informing intervention development. Methods Patient data (n=28) were derived from focus groups and interviews with partnered and unpartnered women treated for breast cancer reporting sexual concerns. Provider data (n=11) came from interviews with breast cancer oncologists and nurse practitioners. Patient and provider data were analyzed separately using the framework method of qualitative analysis. Results Findings revealed individual and institutional barriers to effective communication about sexual concerns and highlighted key communication facilitators (e.g., a positive patient-provider relationship, patient communication as a driver of provider communication and vice versa). Patients expressed preferences for open, collaborative communication; providers expressed preferences for focused intervention targets (identifying concerns, offering resources/referrals) and convenient format. A model of effective communication of sexual concerns was developed to inform communication interventions. Conclusions Findings suggest that to improve patient-provider communication about sexual concerns, knowledge and skills-based interventions that activate patients and that equip providers for effective discussions about sexual concerns are needed, as are institutional changes that could incentivize such discussions.

This is a repository copy of Making a picture worth a thousand numbers: recommendations for graphically displaying patient-reported outcomes data.

No abstract