|
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
|
MJA Careers
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS |
Do all Australian women with breast cancer have access to "best practice" in surgical management?
MJA 1997; 166: 620-621
Register to be notified of new articles by e-mail -
Current contents list -
©MJA1997
A particular advance was the results of randomised clinical trials in
the mid 1980s3 which
definitively showed that breast-conserving surgery followed by
breast irradiation produced much better cosmetic results than
mastectomy, without compromising rates of metastasis or survival.
Breast-conserving surgery is now an accepted part of "best practice"
treatment for most women with early breast cancer, and the National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has produced guidelines4 on its use (see Box).
In this issue of the Journal, Craft and colleagues
provide national data on patterns of breast cancer surgery. Their
survey of Medicare data for 1993 found that breast-conserving
surgery was undertaken in 39.9% of women reimbursed for breast cancer
surgery, but that frequency varied significantly between rural and
urban women (33.9% versus 41.9%) and between States (from 33.8% in
Western Australia to 49.2% in South Australia/Northern Territory).
Similar variations in frequency of breast-conserving surgery have
been seen in the United States.6,7
How can we account for these differences? Craft and colleagues
suggest that accessibility of radiotherapy services, which are
generally located in or near capital cities, may affect a patient's
decision to have breast-conserving surgery, although the Victorian
survey suggested this is important in only 8% of cases.5 Furthermore, the rate of
breast-conserving surgery in a particular rural Victorian practice
between 1992 and 1995 was found to be 68%.8 These results suggest that the
individual surgeon's attitude still plays an important part in the
decision.
In drawing conclusions from this study, its limitations must be
considered. Craft and colleagues claim to have identified about 60%
of the predicted number of women with breast cancer treated in 1993,
but these included only patients treated on a fee-for-service basis
and therefore excluded all non-insured patients treated in public
hospitals. A consistent difference between public and private
patients would limit the significance of the results.
The study also found that frequency of breast-conserving surgery
decreased significantly with patient age. However, this result may
not be accurate as the study selection criteria excluded lumpectomy
if it was not accompanied by axillary dissection or radiotherapy. It
is suspected that radiotherapy is more likely to be omitted -- often
inappropriately -- after breast-conserving surgery in older women,
many of whom receive follow-up treatment with tamoxifen alone.
Unfortunately, the study provides no information on this.
Despite these limitations, the rates of breast-conserving surgery
reported by Craft and colleagues are low in comparison with estimates
that about 70% of mammographically detected cancers and 50% of
clinically detected tumours are suitable for breast conservation.4 For example, rates
exceeding 50% are routinely reported in metropolitan centres and
higher rates have been reported by individuals (e.g., Tulloh and
Goldsworthy8).
However, other measures may be needed. The Royal Australasian
College of Surgeons (RACS) has recognised the need for ongoing
training and continuing education and reaccreditation programs for
surgeons.
For rural women, a regional multidisciplinary team approach is
encouraged, as exemplified in the report of breast cancer management
in a Victorian country town, where formal links existed with the
oncology unit at a Melbourne hospital.8
It is not yet known how far the strategies already in place have
overcome problems such as those identified by Craft and colleagues
and satisfied the House of Representatives' goal that "the
Australian woman who is faced with dealing with breast cancer,
regardless of where she lives and whatever her social and economical
background, should have the very best treatment and support
available".10
As accurate figures on the pattern of surgical care of women with
breast cancer become available, better planning and distribution of
resources for educating physicians and surgeons about breast cancer
may be possible. This would provide women with a greater variety of
treatment options and more involvement in decision-making about
their care. If necessary, specific educational programs may also be
directed at minority patient groups, such as those of a
non-English-speaking background, and subgroups, such as rural
patients, elderly patients and the disadvantaged.
Best practice in the surgical management of breast cancer has come a
long way in the past 20 years, and with increased patient involvement
in management decisions and a well-educated multidisciplinary team
new treatment advances will rapidly find their way into day-to-day
clinical practice.
John P Collins
Home
|
Issues
|
MJA shop
| Terms of use
|
MJA Careers
|
More...
|
Contact
|
Topics
|
Search
|
RSS
©MJA 1997
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/>
© 1997 Medical Journal of Australia.
Breast cancer is the commonest internal malignancy among women in
Australia. It is increasing in incidence and is expected to continue
to do so.1 However, on a
positive note, there have been real advances in diagnosis, treatment
and psychosocial care of women with breast cancer, and mortality from
breast cancer remains stable and is expected to fall.2
How can we ensure that "best practice" surgical management is
available to all Australian women with breast cancer?
There has been concern that breast-conserving surgery may not be
available to all Australian women. A Victorian survey found that
rates of breast-conserving surgery, despite rising from 23% to 43%
between 1986 and 1990, were lower among women in non-metropolitan
Victoria than among metropolitan women and for surgeons who treated
fewer patients with breast cancer per annum.5
How can we ensure that "best practice" surgical management is
available to all Australian women with breast cancer? In the mid
1990s, public and medical concern led the National Breast Cancer
Consensus Conference9 and
the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community
Affairs10 to recommend the
development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The
NHMRC guidelines on management of early breast cancer4 were published in November 1995 and
disseminated widely by the National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC).
current data suggest that the survival of
patients with breast cancer is better if they are treated by a
specialist who also treats a large number of similar patients
More extreme measures, such as passing legislation requiring
surgeons to disclose options for the treatment of breast cancer, have
been tried in the United States. However, this had only a slight and
transient effect on rates of breast-conserving surgery, possibly
via increased public awareness through publicity about the new
legislation, and rates less than 25% were still reported in the US in
1990.7
To determine the impact of the NHMRC guidelines, the NBCC
commissioned a national survey of patients identified through the
State cancer registries before the guideline launch. This survey
will capture over 90% of patients and provide information on the
reasons for choice of treatment options and on surgeon workloads.
This is important as current data suggest that the survival of
patients with breast cancer is better if they are treated by a
specialist who also treats a large number of similar patients, and who
has access to the full range of treatment options in a
multidisciplinary setting.4,11
Head, Breast Unit, Royal Women's Hospital; and Surgeon, Royal
Melbourne Hospital,Melbourne, VIC.