The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management

Chang, J.; Vinés, Eugenio; Bertsch, Helaine; Fraker, Douglas L.; Czerniecki, Brian J.; Rosato, Ernest F.; Lawton, Thomas J.; Conant, Emily F.; Orel, Susan G.; Schuchter, Lynn M.; Fox, Kevin R.; Zieber, R N Nancy; Glick, John H.; Solin, Lawrence J.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010401)91:7<1231::aid-cncr1123>3.0.co;2-k

Cited by 283 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This occurred in 17% of the patients in their series, a finding very similar to the 14% incidence in our study. However, Chang et al 19 observed no patients who had been advised inappropriately to undergo breast-conserving surgery, whereas this occurred in 23 patients who were seen at our breast center.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In addition to providing patients with more information about therapeutic options, we found major differences of opinion regarding appropriate therapy in 20% of the patients in our series. In a similar study, Chang et al 19 reported that management recommendations were changed for 32 of 75 patients who were seen in a multidisciplinary breast carcinoma evaluation program at the University of Pennsylvania. The most common cause of disagreement was that patients who were eligible for breast-conserving therapy had been advised to undergo mastectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results of the Lynn Sage Second‐Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma

Clauson

Hsieh

Acharya

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThe treatment options of breast conservation therapy (BCT) and immediate reconstruction for patients with carcinoma of the breast have not been adopted widely. The objectives of this study were to determine how often a second opinion on the local therapy of breast carcinoma changed patient management and to identify factors predictive of remaining at the second‐opinion site for therapy.METHODSTwo hundred thirty‐one patients with intraductal carcinoma or Stage I and II breast carcinoma were reviewed retrospectively. At the time of the second opinion, patients completed a questionnaire regarding their initial surgical opinion and the reason for seeking consultation.RESULTSOnly 46% of patients had a complete discussion of treatment options prior to the second opinion. The second opinion changed management in 54 patients (20.3%). The most common finding was eligibility for BCT in patients who were offered only mastectomy. Definitive local therapy occurred at the second‐opinion site in 65.8% of patients. The only predictors of remaining at the second‐opinion site were insurance type (P = 0.008) and the patient's perception that options were not discussed at the initial opinion (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSSecond opinions provide useful information to patients and may change the management of their disease. They result in significant patient capture for an institution. Cancer 2002;94:889–94. © 2002 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.10318

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of the Lynn Sage Second‐Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma

Clauson

Hsieh

Acharya

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The TB offers a platform for multiple expert consultations in a timely fashion resulting in practical and relevant recommendation to manage the patient. It is known fact that TB may impact the management of the patients discussed [5][6][7][8][9][10]. 2.…”

Section: What Are the Various Potential Functions Of Tb?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tumor Boards: Beyond the Patient Care Conference

Jazieh

2011

J Canc Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a matter of fact, when the data are reexamined with a multidisciplinary approach, it is stated that decisions are changed by 22-42%. 27,28,29 The decisionmaking process, however, is not firmly established and is often not aware of the patient's preferences, lifestyle, and choices. Consequently, decisions related to treatment, although scientifically excellent, do not benefit the patient.…”

Section: Decision Making Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Making in Surgical Oncology

Yalaza¹,

Akgül²

2018

TJCD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eski Mısır yazmalarından anlaşıldığı üzere kanser en azından 3,500 yıldır önemli bir sağlık sorunudur. Artan bilgi birikimi ve teknolojik yeniliklerle birlikte kansere karşı yapılan mücadelede önemli başarılar elde edilmiştir. Ancak kanser tüm dünyada ölümlerin hala önde gelen nedenlerindendir. Son yüzyılda genetik ve histopatolojik çalışmalarla hastalığın doğası daha iyi anlaşılırken, onkoloji kimi anabilim dallarında cerrahi onkoloji örneğinde olduğu gibi bir bilim dalı olmuştur. Kanser hastalarında karar verme süreci üzerinde çeşitli çalışmalar yapılmış doğru karar vermenin hastalığın iyi yönetimi için gerekli olduğu üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu makalede amacımız bilinenlerden hareketle bu önemli konuda ilave çalışmaların yapılması için zemin oluşturmak, karar alma sürecinin zorluklarını anlama ve bunları aşma konusunda kat edilmesi gereken bir yolun varlığına vurgu yapmaktır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Karar verme, cerrahi, karar destek sistemleri ÖZ ABSTRACTAs can be seen from ancient Egyptian writings, cancer has been a major health problem for at least 3.500 years. Significant progress has been achieved in the battle against cancer in conjunction with increased knowledge and technological developments. However, cancer remains one of the leading causes of deaths worldwide. In the last century, as genetics and histopathological studies have fostered our understanding of the nature of the disease, oncology has become a subdiscipline within some of the major medical branches, i.e. surgical oncology. Several studies have been conducted on the decision-making process in cancer patients and it has been emphasized that correct decision-making is essential for proper management of the disease. In this article, we aimed to create a foundation based on what we already know on this important issue, to understand the difficulties of the decisionmaking process, and to emphasize the developments needed to overcome these difficulties.

show abstract

The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management

Cited by 283 publications

References 18 publications

Results of the Lynn Sage Second‐Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma

Results of the Lynn Sage Second‐Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma

Tumor Boards: Beyond the Patient Care Conference

Decision Making in Surgical Oncology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About