No abstract

Background Improving the quality of follow-up provided to the 3 million U.S. breast cancer survivors is a high priority. Current guidelines do not provide guidance regarding who should participate in follow-up or what providers’ specific responsibilities should be. Given the multidisciplinary nature of breast cancer care, this results in significant variation and creates the potential for redundancy and/or gaps. Our objective was to provide insight into why different types of oncologists believe their participation in follow-up is necessary. Methods A purposeful sample of breast medical, radiation and surgical oncologists was identified (n=35) and in-depth one-on-one interviews conducted. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Results Medical oncologists were driven by a sense of Responsibility for Ongoing Therapy, perceived Strong Patient Relationship, and belief that their systemic approach to follow-up represented a Specific Skillset beneficial to patients. In contrast, surgical and radiation oncologists were selective about which patients they followed, participating when they perceived their Specific Skillset of enhanced local-regional assessments would be valuable. Additionally, they endorsed participating to Ensure Follow-up is Received or not participating to Minimize Redundancy. These individual decisions led to either a Complementary Oncologist Team or Primary Oncologist follow-up approach. Conclusions Oncologists’ feel responsible for the cancer-related components of follow-up. Differences amongst oncology specialists’ perceived responsibilities influenced decisions to provide ongoing follow-up. Based on these individual decisions, a Complementary Oncologist Team or Primary Oncologist model of care evolves organically. Guidelines that explicitly direct patients into a care model have the potential to significantly improve care quality and efficiency.

PurposeTo report the outcomes of patients receiving vaginal brachytherapy and/or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for primary vaginal cancer.Material and methodsBetween 1983 and 2009, 63 patients received brachytherapy and/or EBRT for primary tumors of the vagina at a single tertiary center. Patient data was collected via chart review. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate actuarial pelvic local control (LC), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and severe late toxicity rates. Acute and late toxicities were scored according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3 (CTCAE v3.0).ResultsMedian follow up was 44.2 months. Patients with early stage disease (stages I and II) had significantly improved 5-year OS when compared to patients with locally advanced disease (stages III and IVA) (73.3 vs. 34.4%, p = 0.032). Patients with greater than 1/3 vaginal involvement had significantly worse prognosis than patients with tumors involving 1/3 or less of the vagina, with the later having superior DFS (84.0 vs. 52.4%, p = 0.007) and LC (86.9 vs. 60.4%, p = 0.018) at 5-years. Age, histology, and brachytherapy technique did not impact treatment outcomes. The 5-year actuarial grade 3 or higher toxicity rate was 23.1% (95% CI: 10.6-35.6%). Concurrent chemotherapy had no impact on outcomes or toxicity in this analysis.ConclusionsSuccess of treatment for vaginal cancer depends primarily on disease stage, but other contributing factors such as extent of vaginal involvement and tumor location significantly impact outcomes. Treatment of vaginal cancer with primary radiotherapy yields acceptable results with reasonable toxicity rates. Management of this rare malignancy requires a multidisciplinary approach to appropriately optimize therapy.

No abstract