Symptom-Oriented Follow-Up of Early Breast Cancer – as Good as Conventional Control and Sparing Resources

J. Khatcheressian,Thomas J. Smith
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000105331
2007-09-01
Oncology Research and Treatment
Abstract:tainly acceptable to a large number of patients and may have other benefits such as cost savings [10]. Many oncologists still hold to the outdated idea that more intense follow-up leads to better medical outcomes, despite the data from the randomized and non-randomized trials. Recent data shows oncologists are ordering fewer tests, but we still tend to order more unnecessary tests, especially tumor markers, and more CAT scans [11]. There are other questions not addressed by this study that also deserve attention: 1. Would outcomes have been different if CA27.29 was monitored rather than CA15-3? Gion and colleagues have demonstrated that CA27.29 is as good as CA 15-3 in clinical practice, but not better. [12] Like CA 15-3, CA27.29 has been shown to detect cancer recurrences 5.3 months sooner than symptom development alone [13]. However, metastatic recurrences are incurable and the use of CA27.29 has never been shown to lead to improved survival, quality of life, cost-effectiveness or reduced toxicity. Plus, the CA 15-3 or 27.29 rarely detect curable in-breast or local-regional recurrences. Continued use of the test suggests that oncologists simply do not know or believe the information. This German study should help change German minds. 2. Would the outcomes be the same if patients were randomized onto the follow-up arms of the study rather than choosing the follow-up strategy? It is not likely that randomization would have influenced the outcomes in favor of intensive surveillance. A higher proportion of patients who chose more intensive follow-up vs. symptom oriented follow-up had T2 or greater tumors (54.1 vs. 40.7%, respectively) and were more likely to have N1/N2 disease (38.8 vs. 29.6%, respectively). Yet, the probability of staying recurrence free was 82% in both groups. When the groups were adjusted for variables that influence recurrence, such as node status, there was no difference in the probability of RFS. In this issue of ONKOLOGIE, Bornhak and colleagues [1] present a study on symptom-oriented follow-up of early breast cancer patients. This prospective, multicenter cohort study is an important study for women with breast cancer and their health care providers, both for Germany and the world. It demonstrates that overall and relapse free survival is similar for breast cancer patients whether they are followed with routine laboratory and imaging studies (chest x-rays, liver ultrasound, CEA and CA 15-3) or with testing triggered when symptoms develop. The results are consistent with other welldesigned randomized studies [2, 3] that show survival for breast cancer patients is not improved with routine imaging or laboratory testing in asymptomatic women. Rojas and colleagues [4], in a Cochrane Collaboration review of 4 randomized, controlled clinical trials found no difference in survival between patients observed with intensive radiological and laboratory testing and those observed with only clinical visits and mammography. Routine history taking, physical exams and mammography are still the best ways to follow breast cancer patients, as reflected in the evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology [5] Health Canada’s Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative [6], and National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network [7]. Yet, despite the evidence that routine testing does not improve survival or quality of life, routine imaging and tumor marker assessments are still widely utilized [8] and are very costly [9]. Why are so many of us still hesitant to rely on routine clinical visits and mammography alone when it comes to breast cancer surveillance? Oncologists should listen to their patients more closely. Most patients do not want intense testing; in this study, almost two-thirds of participants chose less intensive follow-up via the symptom-oriented surveillance pathway. No studies show that follow-up every 3–6 months is more effective than less frequent follow-up schedules in terms of survival or quality of life; and less frequent follow-up is cer-
What problem does this paper attempt to address?