National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ september 22-24, 2009 Journal Article


Authors: Allegra, C. J.; Aberle, D. R.; Ganschow, P.; Hahn, S. M.; Lee, C. N.; Millon-Underwood, S.; Pike, M. C.; Reed, S. D.; Saftlas, A. F.; Scarvalone, S. A.; Schwartz, A. M.; Slomski, C.; Yothers, G.; Zon, R.
Article Title: National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: Diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ september 22-24, 2009
Abstract: Objective To provide health-care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on the diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).Participants A non-Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate, 14-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, surgery (general and reconstructive), pathology, radiation oncology, internal medicine, epidemiology, biostatistics, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, preventative medicine and population health, and social work. In addition, 22 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Evidence Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the Minnesota Evidencebased Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. Conference process The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the Federal Government. Conclusions Clearly, the diagnosis and management of DCIS is highly complex with many unanswered questions, including the fundamental natural history of untreated disease. Because of the noninvasive nature of DCIS, coupled with its favorable prognosis, strong consideration should be given to elimination of the use of the anxiety-producing term "carcinoma" from the description of DCIS. The outcomes in women treated with available therapies are excellent. Thus, the primary question for future research must focus on the accurate identification of patient subsets diagnosed with DCIS, including those persons who may be managed with less therapeutic intervention without sacrificing the excellent outcomes presently achieved. Essential in this quest will be the development and validation of accurate risk stratification methods based on a comprehensive understanding of the clinical, pathological, and biological factors associated with DCIS.
Keywords: cancer growth; cancer risk; multimodality cancer therapy; validation process; united states; conference paper; disease free survival; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; cancer diagnosis; cancer incidence; sentinel lymph node biopsy; evidence based medicine; nursing; evidence-based medicine; biological marker; quality of life; mastectomy; tumor volume; risk factors; pathology; breast neoplasms; oncology; information retrieval; cancer therapy; risk assessment; radiology; clinical competence; medical research; population; surgeon; clinical research; tamoxifen; health care personnel; cancer epidemiology; estrogen receptor; health care organization; gynecology; intraductal carcinoma; biostatistics; ethnicity; carcinoma, intraductal, noninfiltrating; obstetrics; national institutes of health (u.s.); risk management; knowledge; social work; internal medicine; preventive medicine; review literature as topic
Journal Title: JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume: 102
Issue: 3
ISSN: 0027-8874
Publisher: Oxford University Press  
Date Published: 2010-02-03
Start Page: 161
End Page: 169
Language: English
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp485
PUBMED: 20071686
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: --- - "Cited By (since 1996): 11" - "Export Date: 20 April 2011" - "CODEN: JNCIA" - "Source: Scopus"
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Malcolm Pike
    190 Pike