Carol Sawka

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical features, natural history, and outcomes for women with "triple-negative" breast cancer with women with other types of breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We studied a cohort of 1,601 patients with breast cancer, diagnosed between January 1987 and December 1997 at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. Triple-negative breast cancers were defined as those that were estrogen receptor negative, progesterone receptor negative, and HER2neu negative. The prognostic significance of triple-negative breast cancer was explored. RESULTS: The median follow-up time of the 1,601 women was 8.1 years. One hundred and eighty of 1,601 patients (11.2%) had triple-negative breast cancer. Compared with other women with breast cancer, those with triple-negative breast cancer had an increased likelihood of distant recurrence (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-3.5; P < 0.0001) and death (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-4.5; P < 0.001) within 5 years of diagnosis but not thereafter. The pattern of recurrence was also qualitatively different; among the triple-negative group, the risk of distant recurrence peaked at approximately 3 years and declined rapidly thereafter. Among the "other" group, the recurrence risk seemed to be constant over the period of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Triple-negative breast cancers have a more aggressive clinical course than other forms of breast cancer, but the adverse effect is transient.

PURPOSE: Most women with breast cancer are diagnosed at an early stage and more than 80% will be long-term survivors. Routine follow-up marks the transition from intensive treatment to survivorship. It is usual practice for routine follow-up to take place in specialist clinics. This study tested the hypothesis that follow-up by the patient's family physician is a safe and acceptable alternative to specialist follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted involving 968 patients with early-stage breast cancer who had completed adjuvant treatment, were disease free, and were between 9 and 15 months after diagnosis. Patients may have continued receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy. Patients were randomly allocated to follow-up in the cancer center according to usual practice (CC group) or follow-up from their own family physician (FP group). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence-related serious clinical events (SCEs). The secondary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: In the FP group, there were 54 recurrences (11.2%) and 29 deaths (6.0%). In the CC group, there were 64 recurrences (13.2%) and 30 deaths (6.2%). In the FP group, 17 patients (3.5%) compared with 18 patients (3.7%) in the CC group experienced an SCE (0.19% difference; 95% CI, -2.26% to 2.65%). No statistically significant differences (P < .05) were detected between groups on any of the HRQL questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients can be offered follow-up by their family physician without concern that important recurrence-related SCEs will occur more frequently or that HRQL will be negatively affected.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) by breast cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, and to compare the characteristics of CAM users and CAM nonusers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of Ontario women diagnosed with breast cancer in 1994 or 1995. RESULTS: The response rate was 76.3%. Overall, 66.7% of the respondents reported using CAM, most often in an attempt to boost the immune system. CAM practitioners (most commonly chiropractors, herbalists, acupuncturists, traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, and/or naturopathic practitioners) were visited by 39.4% of the respondents. In addition, 62.0% reported use of CAM products (most frequently vitamins/minerals, herbal medicines, green tea, special foods, and essiac). Almost one half of the respondents informed their physicians of their use of CAM. Multiple logistic regression analysis determined that support group attendance was the only factor significantly associated with CAM use. CONCLUSION: CAM use is common among Canadian breast cancer survivors, many of whom are discussing CAM therapy options with their physicians. Knowledge of CAM therapies is necessary for physicians and other health care practitioners to help patients make informed choices. CAM use may play a role in the positive benefits associated with support group attendance.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patients have indicated a desire for more information about their disease and to be involved in making decisions about their care. We developed an aid called the "Decision Board" to help clinicians inform patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer of the risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. We determined whether adding the Decision Board to the medical consultation improved patient knowledge and satisfaction compared with the medical consultation alone. METHODS: Between October 1995 and March 2000, 176 women with lymph node-negative breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive the Decision Board plus the medical consultation (83 patients) or the medical consultation alone (93 patients). One week after the consultation, patients completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge about breast cancer and chemotherapy. Satisfaction with decision making was assessed 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization, and differences between groups were analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of variance. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients in the Decision Board arm were better informed about breast cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy than patients in the control arm (mean knowledge score = 80.2 [on a scale of 0-100], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.1 to 83.3, and 71.7, 95% CI = 69.0 to 74.4, respectively; P<.001). Over the entire study period, satisfaction with decision making was higher for patients in the Decision Board arm than for patients in the control arm (P =.032). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who chose adjuvant chemotherapy (77% and 70% for patients in the Decision Board arm and those in the control arm, respectively; P =.303). CONCLUSION: When making decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with early breast cancer who had been exposed to the Decision Board had better knowledge of the disease and treatment options and greater satisfaction with their decision making than those who received the standard consultation.

Cancer pathology reports contain information which is critical for patient management and for cancer surveillance, resource planning, and quality purposes. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has defined scientifically validated content of checklists that form the basis for synoptic cancer pathology reporting. We outline how the CAP standards were implemented in a large Canadian province over a 3-year period resulting in improvements in rates of synoptic reporting and completeness of cancer pathology reporting.