4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The management of ductal carcinoma in situ in north America and Europe - Results of a survey

期刊

CANCER
卷 101, 期 9, 页码 1958-1967

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20580

关键词

breast carcinoma; radiotherapeutic management; ductal carcinoma in situ; survey

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The goal of the current study was to understand and document contemporary treatment approaches in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS. An original questionnaire was designed to assess radiation oncologists' management of breast carcinoma, including 26 questions specifically addressing DCIS. A postal survey was conducted of members of the American and European Societies of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. The results of 702 responses from North America were compared with 435 responses from Europe, to determine treatment recommendations and variability by type of institution and geographic region. RESULTS. There were strong correlations between the grade of DCIS and/or the margin status and the use of radiotherapy (RT; P < 0.0001). For Grade 3 DCIS, RT was recommended regardless of the margin status. Opinions were split in the treatment of low-grade DCIS with 10-mm margins. North American respondents were more likely to recommend RT for low-grade DCIS than their European counterparts (P < 0.0001). Within the United States, there were significant regional variations in physician recommendations for tamoxifen (P < 0.001), but not in the tendency to recommend RT. North American academic physicians were less likely to recommend RT for favorable DCIS than nonacademic physicians (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS. There were marked differences in physician opinions regarding the management of DCIS, with significant international differences in patterns of care. The survey quantified and highlighted areas of agreement and controversy regarding the use of RT and tamoxifen in the management of DCIS. It provided support for large international trials to evaluate the optimal management of DCIS in the areas identified as most controversial. (C) 2004 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据