Person:

Fletcher, Suzanne

Introduction: Randomized trials indicate that adjuvant radiotherapy plus tamoxifen decrease the five-year risk of recurrence among ductal carcinoma in situ patients treated with breast-conserving surgery from about 20% to 8%. The aims of this study were to examine the use and impact of these therapies on risk of recurrence among ductal carcinoma in situ patients diagnosed and treated in the community setting. Methods: We identified 2,995 patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ between 1990 and 2001 and treated with breast-conserving surgery at three large health plans. Medical charts were reviewed to confirm diagnosis and treatment and to obtain information on subsequent breast cancers. On a subset of patients, slides from the index ductal carcinoma in situ were reviewed for histopathologic features. Cumulative incidence curves were generated and Cox regression was used to examine changes in five-year risk of recurrence across diagnosis years, with and without adjusting for trends in use of adjuvant therapies. Results: Use of radiotherapy increased from 25.8% in 1990-1991 to 61.3% in 2000-2001; tamoxifen increased from 2.3% to 34.4%. A total of 245 patients had a local recurrence within five years of their index ductal carcinoma in situ. The five-year risk of any local recurrence decreased from 14.3% (95% confidence interval 9.8 to 18.7) for patients diagnosed in 1990-1991 to 7.7% (95% confidence interval 5.5 to 9.9) for patients diagnosed in 1998-1999; invasive recurrence decreased from 7.0% (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 10.3) to 3.1% (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 4.6). In Cox models, the association between diagnosis year and risk of recurrence was modestly attenuated after accounting for use of adjuvant therapy. Between 1990-1991 and 2000-2001, the proportion of patients with tumors with high nuclear grade decreased from 46% to 32% (P = 0.03) and those with involved surgical margins dropped from 15% to 0% (P = 0.03). Conclusions: The marked increase in the 1990s in the use of adjuvant therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ patients treated with breast-conserving surgery in the community setting only partially explains the 50% decline in risk of recurrence. Changes in pathology factors have likely also contributed to this decline.

Background: Little is known about using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in physical diagnosis courses. The purpose of this study was to describe student performance on an OSCE in a physical diagnosis course. Methods: Cross-sectional study at Harvard Medical School, 1997–1999, for 489 second-year students. Results: Average total OSCE score was 57% (range 39–75%). Among clinical skills, students scored highest on patient interaction (72%), followed by examination technique (65%), abnormality identification (62%), history-taking (60%), patient presentation (60%), physical examination knowledge (47%), and differential diagnosis (40%) (p < .0001). Among 16 OSCE stations, scores ranged from 70% for arthritis to 29% for calf pain (p < .0001). Teaching sites accounted for larger adjusted differences in station scores, up to 28%, than in skill scores (9%) (p < .0001). Conclusions: Students scored higher on interpersonal and technical skills than on interpretive or integrative skills. Station scores identified specific content that needs improved teaching.

Background: Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity ((\sim)94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity. Objective: To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WA, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N = 1,484). Measurements: Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise. Results: Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1–63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.46). Conclusions: Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific.