Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey

Marta Bonotto, Debora Basile, Lorenzo Gerratana, Giacomo Pelizzari, Michele Bartoletti, Maria Grazia Vitale, Valentina Fanotto, Camilla Lisanti, Mauro Mansutti, Alessandro Marco Minisini, Giuseppe Aprile, Michele De Laurentiis, Filippo Montemurro, Lucia Del Mastro, Fabio Puglisi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for monitoring metastatic breast cancer (M-MBC) is unclear. Nevertheless, M-MBC influences patient's quality of life and it affects the use of resources in terms of both drugs and diagnostic exam prescription. We aim to disclose oncologists' approach on M-MBC, identifying controversial areas.

METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted among GIM members who, based on their on-field experience, shared their own method for M-MBC planning. Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate.

RESULTS: The survey was completed by 256 recipients (51%). The majority of them were medical oncologists. Approximately 50% of respondents reported that M-MBC was primarily based on the monitoring strategies used in clinical trials, and for 70% of them M-MBC should be evidence-based. Areas of controversies included the primary goal of M-MBC, the use of tumour markers, the optimal timing for baseline assessment and frequency of repeating testing. Respondents agreed on planning M-MBC before treatment's start and on discussing with the patient about the M-MBC strategy and on choosing CT-scan as the preferred reassessment imaging method. The most relevant factors influencing the M-MBC strategy were performance status, triple negative histology, exam's contraindication, the presence of clinically measurable disease, and treatment safety profile; on the contrary, patients' socio-economic status, exam's cost, and hospital's logistic limits were less relevant. Experienced oncologists seemed less prone to intensive follow-up.

CONCLUSION: M-MBC strategy still has controversial issues and its potential clinical effects for breast cancer patients need ad hoc studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-52
Number of pages8
JournalBreast
Volume40
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2018

Fingerprint

Breast Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Surveys and Questionnaires
Hospital Costs
Physiologic Monitoring
Chi-Square Distribution
Tumor Biomarkers
Prescriptions
Histology
Economics
Quality of Life
Clinical Trials
Safety
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Oncologists

Cite this

Bonotto, M., Basile, D., Gerratana, L., Pelizzari, G., Bartoletti, M., Vitale, M. G., ... Puglisi, F. (2018). Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey. Breast, 40, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.011

Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey. / Bonotto, Marta; Basile, Debora; Gerratana, Lorenzo; Pelizzari, Giacomo; Bartoletti, Michele; Vitale, Maria Grazia; Fanotto, Valentina; Lisanti, Camilla; Mansutti, Mauro; Minisini, Alessandro Marco; Aprile, Giuseppe; De Laurentiis, Michele; Montemurro, Filippo; Del Mastro, Lucia; Puglisi, Fabio.

In: Breast, Vol. 40, 08.2018, p. 45-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bonotto, M, Basile, D, Gerratana, L, Pelizzari, G, Bartoletti, M, Vitale, MG, Fanotto, V, Lisanti, C, Mansutti, M, Minisini, AM, Aprile, G, De Laurentiis, M, Montemurro, F, Del Mastro, L & Puglisi, F 2018, 'Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey', Breast, vol. 40, pp. 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.011
Bonotto, Marta ; Basile, Debora ; Gerratana, Lorenzo ; Pelizzari, Giacomo ; Bartoletti, Michele ; Vitale, Maria Grazia ; Fanotto, Valentina ; Lisanti, Camilla ; Mansutti, Mauro ; Minisini, Alessandro Marco ; Aprile, Giuseppe ; De Laurentiis, Michele ; Montemurro, Filippo ; Del Mastro, Lucia ; Puglisi, Fabio. / Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey. In: Breast. 2018 ; Vol. 40. pp. 45-52.
@article{6de519c4c03846d386ea8bb3318b2aa2,
title = "Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for monitoring metastatic breast cancer (M-MBC) is unclear. Nevertheless, M-MBC influences patient's quality of life and it affects the use of resources in terms of both drugs and diagnostic exam prescription. We aim to disclose oncologists' approach on M-MBC, identifying controversial areas.METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted among GIM members who, based on their on-field experience, shared their own method for M-MBC planning. Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate.RESULTS: The survey was completed by 256 recipients (51{\%}). The majority of them were medical oncologists. Approximately 50{\%} of respondents reported that M-MBC was primarily based on the monitoring strategies used in clinical trials, and for 70{\%} of them M-MBC should be evidence-based. Areas of controversies included the primary goal of M-MBC, the use of tumour markers, the optimal timing for baseline assessment and frequency of repeating testing. Respondents agreed on planning M-MBC before treatment's start and on discussing with the patient about the M-MBC strategy and on choosing CT-scan as the preferred reassessment imaging method. The most relevant factors influencing the M-MBC strategy were performance status, triple negative histology, exam's contraindication, the presence of clinically measurable disease, and treatment safety profile; on the contrary, patients' socio-economic status, exam's cost, and hospital's logistic limits were less relevant. Experienced oncologists seemed less prone to intensive follow-up.CONCLUSION: M-MBC strategy still has controversial issues and its potential clinical effects for breast cancer patients need ad hoc studies.",
author = "Marta Bonotto and Debora Basile and Lorenzo Gerratana and Giacomo Pelizzari and Michele Bartoletti and Vitale, {Maria Grazia} and Valentina Fanotto and Camilla Lisanti and Mauro Mansutti and Minisini, {Alessandro Marco} and Giuseppe Aprile and {De Laurentiis}, Michele and Filippo Montemurro and {Del Mastro}, Lucia and Fabio Puglisi",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.011",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "45--52",
journal = "Breast",
issn = "0960-9776",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Controversies in monitoring metastatic breast cancer during systemic treatment. Results of a GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) survey

AU - Bonotto, Marta

AU - Basile, Debora

AU - Gerratana, Lorenzo

AU - Pelizzari, Giacomo

AU - Bartoletti, Michele

AU - Vitale, Maria Grazia

AU - Fanotto, Valentina

AU - Lisanti, Camilla

AU - Mansutti, Mauro

AU - Minisini, Alessandro Marco

AU - Aprile, Giuseppe

AU - De Laurentiis, Michele

AU - Montemurro, Filippo

AU - Del Mastro, Lucia

AU - Puglisi, Fabio

N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/8

Y1 - 2018/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for monitoring metastatic breast cancer (M-MBC) is unclear. Nevertheless, M-MBC influences patient's quality of life and it affects the use of resources in terms of both drugs and diagnostic exam prescription. We aim to disclose oncologists' approach on M-MBC, identifying controversial areas.METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted among GIM members who, based on their on-field experience, shared their own method for M-MBC planning. Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate.RESULTS: The survey was completed by 256 recipients (51%). The majority of them were medical oncologists. Approximately 50% of respondents reported that M-MBC was primarily based on the monitoring strategies used in clinical trials, and for 70% of them M-MBC should be evidence-based. Areas of controversies included the primary goal of M-MBC, the use of tumour markers, the optimal timing for baseline assessment and frequency of repeating testing. Respondents agreed on planning M-MBC before treatment's start and on discussing with the patient about the M-MBC strategy and on choosing CT-scan as the preferred reassessment imaging method. The most relevant factors influencing the M-MBC strategy were performance status, triple negative histology, exam's contraindication, the presence of clinically measurable disease, and treatment safety profile; on the contrary, patients' socio-economic status, exam's cost, and hospital's logistic limits were less relevant. Experienced oncologists seemed less prone to intensive follow-up.CONCLUSION: M-MBC strategy still has controversial issues and its potential clinical effects for breast cancer patients need ad hoc studies.

AB - BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for monitoring metastatic breast cancer (M-MBC) is unclear. Nevertheless, M-MBC influences patient's quality of life and it affects the use of resources in terms of both drugs and diagnostic exam prescription. We aim to disclose oncologists' approach on M-MBC, identifying controversial areas.METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted among GIM members who, based on their on-field experience, shared their own method for M-MBC planning. Chi-square tests and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate.RESULTS: The survey was completed by 256 recipients (51%). The majority of them were medical oncologists. Approximately 50% of respondents reported that M-MBC was primarily based on the monitoring strategies used in clinical trials, and for 70% of them M-MBC should be evidence-based. Areas of controversies included the primary goal of M-MBC, the use of tumour markers, the optimal timing for baseline assessment and frequency of repeating testing. Respondents agreed on planning M-MBC before treatment's start and on discussing with the patient about the M-MBC strategy and on choosing CT-scan as the preferred reassessment imaging method. The most relevant factors influencing the M-MBC strategy were performance status, triple negative histology, exam's contraindication, the presence of clinically measurable disease, and treatment safety profile; on the contrary, patients' socio-economic status, exam's cost, and hospital's logistic limits were less relevant. Experienced oncologists seemed less prone to intensive follow-up.CONCLUSION: M-MBC strategy still has controversial issues and its potential clinical effects for breast cancer patients need ad hoc studies.

U2 - 10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.011

DO - 10.1016/j.breast.2018.04.011

M3 - Article

C2 - 29679936

VL - 40

SP - 45

EP - 52

JO - Breast

JF - Breast

SN - 0960-9776

ER -