Faculty Bibliography

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, is a chronic, debilitating, and expensive condition affecting millions of people globally. There is significant variation in the quality of care for patients with IBD across North America, Europe, and Asia; this variation suggests poor quality of care due to overuse, underuse, or misuse of health services and disparity of outcomes. Several initiatives have been developed to reduce variation in care delivery and improve processes of care, patient outcomes, and reduced healthcare costs. These initiatives include the development of quality indicator sets to standardize care across organizations, and learning health systems to enable data sharing between doctors and patients, and sharing of best practices among providers. These programs have been variably successful in improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare utilization. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the long-term impact and applicability of these efforts in different geographic areas around the world, as regional variations in patient populations, societal preferences, and costs should inform local quality improvement efforts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:This article serves as an overview of several quality improvement initiatives in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:IBD is associated with significant variation in care, suggesting poor quality of care. There have been several efforts to improve the quality of care for patients with IBD. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives in IBD are intended to be patient-centric, improve outcomes for individuals and populations, and reduce costs-all consistent with "the triple aim" put forth by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). Current QI initiatives include the development of quality measure sets to standardize processes and outcomes, learning health systems to foster collaborative improvement, and patient-centered medical homes specific to patients with IBD in shared risk models of care. Some of these programs have demonstrated early success in improving patient outcomes, reducing costs, improving patient satisfaction, and facilitating patient engagement. However, further studies are needed to evaluate and compare the effects of these programs over time on clinical outcomes in order to demonstrate long-term value and sustainability.

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast has rapidly increased in incidence over the past several decades secondary to an increased use of screening mammography. Local treatment options for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ include mastectomy or breast-conserving therapy. Although several randomized trials have confirmed a >50% reduction in the risk of local recurrence with the administration of radiation therapy (RT) compared with breast-conserving surgery alone, controversy persists regarding whether or not RT is needed in selected "low-risk" patients. Over the past two decades, two prospective single-arm studies and one randomized trial have been performed and confirm that the omission of RT after surgery is associated with higher rates of local recurrence even after selecting patients with optimal clinical and pathologic features. Importantly, these trials have failed to consistently and reproducibly identify a low-risk cohort of patients (based on clinical and pathologic features) that does not benefit from RT. As a result, adjuvant RT is still advocated in the majority of patients, even in low-risk cases. Future research is moving beyond traditional clinical and pathologic risk factors and instead focusing on approaches such as multigene assays and biomarkers with the hopes of identifying truly low-risk patients who may not require RT. However, recent studies confirm that even low-risk patients identified from multigene assays have higher rates of local recurrence with local excision alone than would be expected with the addition of RT.

Breast cancer radiotherapy represents an essential component in the overall management of both early stage and locally advanced breast cancer. As the number of breast cancer survivors has increased, chronic sequelae of breast cancer radiotherapy become more important. While recently published data suggest a potential for an increase in cardiac events with radiotherapy, these studies do not consider the impact of newer radiotherapy techniques commonly utilized. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate cardiac dose sparing techniques in breast cancer radiotherapy. Current options for cardiac protection/avoidance include (1) maneuvers that displace the heart from the field such as coordinating the breathing cycle or through prone patient positioning, (2) technological advances such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT), and (3) techniques that treat a smaller volume around the lumpectomy cavity such as accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), or intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). While these techniques have shown promise dosimetrically, limited data on late cardiac events exist due to the difficulties of long-term follow up. Future studies are required to validate the efficacy of cardiac dose sparing techniques and may use surrogates for cardiac events such as biomarkers or perfusion imaging.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare reimbursement and cost efficacy between accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques. MATERIALS/METHODS/METHODS:Four hundred fifty-three patients were treated with APBI using either 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT, n=207) or balloon-based brachytherapy (BB) [single-lumen (SL, n=161) and multilumen (ML, n=85)] between March 2000 and October 2011. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, reimbursement by treatment technique was calculated based on 2011 Medicare schedules. Facility costs were generated by technique based on ICD-9 codes. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER), which compares cost with clinical outcomes, were calculated according to the difference in reimbursement to the criteria being evaluated. RESULTS:With a median follow-up of 3.6 years, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was 1.9% for all patients (3D-CRT, 0%; BB, 4.1%; P=0.23). When pooled, BB patients had a significant improvement in excellent/good cosmesis (91.6% vs. 80.0%; P=0.03). Rates of combined grade 2 or higher dermatitis, hyper/hypopigmentation, pain, or fibrosis per technique were 62%, 28%, and 34% for 3D-CRT, SL, and ML patients, respectively (P=0.26). The ICER per percent improved cosmesis for SL/ML was $519/$850 based on reimbursement and $301/$643 based on cost compared with 3D-CRT. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of ICER, brachytherapy for APBI is a cost-effective option with regard to cosmesis and toxicity. This economic analysis suggests the increased cost of applicator-based brachytherapy may be justified in appropriately selected patients.

BACKGROUND:Limited data exist on the use of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate clinical outcomes after APBI in patients with DCIS. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Between December 2002 and December 2010, 99 patients with DCIS underwent APBI as part of their breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Partial breast irradiation techniques included interstitial brachytherapy, balloon-based brachytherapy, and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Clinical outcomes including local recurrence, regional recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. RESULTS:Mean follow up was 3.0 years, with a mean patient age of 61.8 years. At 5 years, the rates of local recurrence and regional recurrence were 1.4% and 0%, respectively. Overall survival was 94%, whereas cause-specific survival was 100%. No difference was noted in local control for each treatment technique. When comparing rates using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) E-5194 trial groupings, the rate of local recurrence in our cohort was 2.0% for patients with grade I/II disease < 2.5 cm and 0% for grade III < 1.0 cm, representing a 50% and 100% decrease, respectively, in local recurrence compared with excision alone. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with DCIS treated with APBI had excellent clinical outcomes regardless of the APBI technique used. Until the publication of prospective phase III trials, these data confirm previous reports highlighting the efficacy of APBI in the treatment of noninvasive carcinoma of the breast.

UNLABELLED:Limited data are available on the implementation of a high-risk assessment program in the construct of a community clinical oncology program. The development of a high-risk breast cancer screening program at our institution identified 15%-20% of patients screened as high risk, with limited increases in structural or personnel requirements. Identification of patients as high risk could potentially improve outcomes by allowing for individualized prevention strategies and more appropriate high-risk surveillance. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The implementation of a program that incorporates a risk assessment questionnaire (RAQ) to identify high-risk patients in a community-based health system was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Women with no history of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ who were undergoing annual screening mammography were offered an RAQ. Cases determined to be high risk (Gail lifetime risk ≥20% or as indicated through personal and/or family history) were offered referral to our High-risk Breast Cancer Program. A retrospective data review was conducted on completed questionnaires. RESULTS:A total of 5878 women underwent evaluation with the RAQ between September 2009 and August 2010. The mean age of the cohort was 55 years old, with 84.9% (4990) of participants being white, and 6.8% (400) African American. In the entire population, 45.7% (2446) had at least 1 first-degree relative with breast cancer (BC), and 923 (17.2%) women were found to be high risk by the Gail model. Beyond the Gail model, 53 (0.9%) women had undergone prior chest radiation, 34 (0.6%) had a male relative with BC, 200 (3.4%), had 3 or more relatives with BC on one side of their family, 308 (5.2%) had a relative with breast and ovarian cancer on one side of the family, and 105 (1.8%) noted 2 relatives with BC with onset under age 50 years on the same side of the family. CONCLUSIONS:Our experience indicates that the identification of women at high risk for BC can be easily incorporated into an annual screening mammography visit. Identification of these patients as high risk can allow for individualized, more-appropriate surveillance and prevention.