Value-Based Breast Cancer Care: A Multidisciplinary Approach for Defining Patient-Centered Outcomes

Barriers and facilitators to measuring patient reported outcomes in an academic breast cancer clinic: An application of the RE-AIM framework

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important for patient-centered, value-based care; however, implementation into surgical practice remains limited. We aimed to demonstrate feasibility of measuring PROMs in an academic breast cancer clinic.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot study implementing the patient-reported outcome measure BREAST-Q among patients with Stage 0-III breast cancer at a single institution from 06/2019-03/2023 using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Barriers and facilitators were characterized. Survey completion was assessed pre-operatively and up to 12 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Barriers included limited time and lack of incorporation into the electronic medical record. Facilitators included utilizing trained team members and an automated workflow. Among eligible patients, 74% completed BREAST-Q at 2-weeks post-operatively and 55% at 12 months post-operatively.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the implementation of a PROM using the RE-AIM framework, highlighting facilitators and barriers that may assist others in collecting patient-reported outcome data.

Implications of Agile Values in Software Engineering for Agility in Breast Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatment has been described as a dynamic and patient-centered approach that emphasizes adaptability and flexibility throughout the treatment process. Breast cancer is complex, with varying subtypes and stages, making it important to tailor treatment plans to each patient's unique circumstances. Breast cancer treatment delivery relies on a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals who collaborate to provide personalized care and quick adaptation to changing conditions to optimize outcomes while minimizing side effects and maintaining the patient's quality of life. However, agility in breast cancer treatment has not been defined according to common agile values and described in language comprehensible to breast cancer professionals. In the rapidly evolving landscape of breast cancer treatment, the incorporation of agile values from software engineering promises to enhance patient care.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to propose agile values for breast cancer treatment adopted and adapted from software engineering. We also aim to validate how these values conform to the concept of agility in the breast cancer context through referencing past work.

METHODS

We applied a structured research methodology to identify and validate 4 agile values for breast cancer treatment. In the elicitation phase, through 2 interviews, we identified 4 agile values and described them in language that resonates with breast cancer treatment professionals. The values were then validated by a domain expert and discussed in the context of supporting work from the literature. Final validation entailed a domain expert conducting a walkthrough of the 4 identified agile values to adjust them as per the reported literature.

RESULTS

Four agile values were identified for breast cancer treatment, and among them, we validated 3 that conformed to the concept of agility. The fourth value, documentation and the quality of documentation, is vital for breast cancer treatment planning and management. This does not conform to agility. However, its nonagility is vital for the agility of the other values. None of the identified agile values were validated as partially conforming to the concept of agility.

CONCLUSIONS

This work makes a novel contribution to knowledge in identifying the first set of agile values in breast cancer treatment through multidisciplinary research. Three of these values were evaluated as conforming to the concept of agility, and although 1 value did not meet the concept of agility, it enhanced the agility of the other values. It is anticipated that these 4 agile values can drive oncology practice, strategies, policies, protocols, and procedures to enhance delivery of care. Moreover, the identified values contribute to identifying quality assurance and control practices to assess the concept of agility in oncology practice and breast cancer treatment and adjust corresponding actions. We conclude that breast cancer treatment agile values are not limited to 4.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/53124.

Improving Outcome-Driven Care in Multiple Myeloma Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Qualitative Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma is an incurable disease with a considerable illness and treatment burden, which negatively impacts patients' quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of multiple myeloma care in five Dutch hospitals, related to the three objectives of outcome-driven care, which are defined as (1) providing information for shared decision making in individual patient care, (2) supporting the learning capacity of healthcare professionals and healthcare institutions through benchmarking and (3) developing outcome-driven and patient-centred contracting by health insurers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews about experiences with patient-reported outcomes were conducted with patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders 2 years after implementation. Data were thematically analysed, and emerging topics were clustered around the three objectives of outcome-driven care.

RESULTS

A total of 46 interviews were held (15 with patients, 16 with professionals and 15 with other stakeholders) that showed patients with multiple myeloma were willing to complete patient-reported outcomes, although integration of patient-reported outcomes in shared decision making fell short in clinical practice. Aggregated patient-reported outcomes were considered important for improving quality of care; however, data collection and data exchange are hindered by privacy legislation, limitations of IT systems and a lack of data standards. Patient-reported outcomes were expected to contribute to cost-effective multiple myeloma treatment, yet outcome-driven reimbursement is still lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome-driven multiple myeloma care using patient-reported outcomes is feasible, provided that (1) patient-reported outcomes and shared decision making are integrated into clinical practice, (2) legal and technical obstacles hindering data collection are removed and (3) health insurers adjust their reimbursement plans to facilitate outcome-driven care.

Access to Results of Patient Reported Outcome Surveys Does Not Improve Survey Response Rates

INTRODUCTION

In this embedded substudy of a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial, we sought to evaluate the effects of patient engagement and results feedback on longitudinal patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey completion rates.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer patients seen at an academic breast center between June 2019 and December 2021 were invited to participate in a longitudinal PRO study. Participants were emailed the BREAST-Q survey, a validated PRO scale, preoperatively and at regular intervals during their postoperative course. Patients were randomized into the intervention group, who received survey results upon completion, or the control group, who received no feedback. The primary endpoint was postoperative survey completion rate. An intention to treat analysis was performed and a quasi-Poisson regression was used to compare rates of longitudinal survey completion between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 253 patients offered the preoperative survey, 115 were in the intervention group and 138 were in the control group. Postoperative survey completion rate was 54% for the intervention group and 47% for the control group. There was no significant difference in longitudinal postoperative survey completion rate between the two groups (rate ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients did not complete surveys at a higher rate when their survey results were shared with them, suggesting that viewing these results without appropriate clinical context does not generate significant enhancement in patient engagement. Effective interventions to improve survey response rate must be identified to better evaluate PROs.

Quality measurement for cardiovascular diseases and cancer in hospital value-based healthcare: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

This systematic literature review identifies hospital value-based healthcare quality measures, measurement practices, and tools, as well as potential strategies for improving cardiovascular diseases and cancer care.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (OvidSP) databases. We included studies on quality measures in hospital value-based healthcare for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted data thematically. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and four validated tools were used for methodological quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2860 publications. After screening the titles and abstracts, 60 articles were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that standardized outcome sets with patient involvement were developed for some cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Despite the heterogeneity in outcome measures, there was consensus to include clinical outcomes on survival rate and disease control, disutility of care, and patient-reported outcome measures such as long-term quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals that developed value-based healthcare or are planning to do so can choose whether they prefer to implement the standardized outcomes step-by-step, collect additional measures, or develop their own set of measures. However, they need to ensure that their performance can be consistently compared to that of their peers and that they measure what prioritizes and maximizes value for their patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42021229763 .

Value-Based Quality Care for Breast Cancer: More Than Guidelines

Although guidelines recommend some of the most expensive diagnostic methods and therapies, some patients do have the opportunity to use them, but some others have overused or misused such methods. The cost of cancer care is increasing, but the satisfaction levels of patients and healthcare workers have not increased in line with this rise. Value-based care for cancer, especially breast cancer, should be implemented. For this reason, all unnecessary screening, tests, treatments, and follow-up parameters should be avoided.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented.

PATIENT SUMMARY

While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.

Qualitative evaluation of a community health representative program on patient experiences in Navajo Nation

BACKGROUND

Community Health Representatives (CHRs) overcome health disparities in Native communities by delivering home care, health education, and community health promotion. The Navajo CHR Program partners with the non-profit Community Outreach and Patient Empowerment (COPE), to provide home-based outreach to Navajo clients living with diabetes. COPE has created an intervention (COPE intervention) focusing on multiple levels of improved care including trainings for CHRs on Motivational Interviewing and providing CHRs with culturally-appropriate education materials. The objective of this research is to understand the participant perspective of the CHR-COPE collaborative outreach through exploring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of clients who consent to receiving the COPE intervention (COPE clients) using a qualitative methods evaluation.

METHODS

Seven COPE clients were selected to participate in semi-structured interviews one year after finishing COPE to explore their perspective and experiences. Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify themes.

RESULTS

Clients revealed that health education delivered by CHRs facilitated lifestyle changes by helping them understand key health indicators and setting achievable goals through the use of accessible material and encouragement. Clients felt comfortable with CHRs who respected traditional practices and made regular visits. Clients also appreciated when CHRs educated their family members, who in turn were better able to support the client in their health management. Finally, CHRs who implemented the COPE intervention helped patients who were unable to regularly see a primary care doctor for critical care and support in their disease management.

CONCLUSION

The COPE-CHR collaboration facilitated trusting client-CHR relationships and allowed clients to better understand their diagnoses. Further investment in materials that respect traditional practices and aim to educate clients' families may foster these relationships and improve health outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03326206. Registered 9/26/2017 (retrospectively registered).

Nursing students' perception of patient-centred care: A qualitative study

Aim

This study aimed to explain the understanding of nursing students from the concept of patient-centred care.

Design

This is an explorative and descriptive-qualitative design.

Methods

The participants consisted of 15 nursing students who were selected through purposeful sampling, and data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews and analysed using a qualitative content analysis.

Results

Data analysis led to the identification of three categories including the following: the inevitability of patient-centred care, the patient-centredness in comprehensive care and the importance of nursing process in patient-centred care. Introducing students to the concept of patient-centred care and how it can be achieved seems necessary during nursing education. Introducing a module on patient-centred care to the nursing curriculum is suggested to familiarize students with this concept.

Value-based healthcare in ischemic stroke care: case-mix adjustment models for clinical and patient-reported outcomes

Background

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have been proposed for benchmarking health care quality across hospitals, which requires extensive case-mix adjustment. The current study’s aim was to develop and compare case-mix models for mortality, a functional outcome, and a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in ischemic stroke care.

Methods

Data from ischemic stroke patients, admitted to four stroke centers in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2016 with available outcome information (N = 1022), was analyzed. Case-mix adjustment models were developed for mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and EQ-5D index scores with respectively binary logistic, proportional odds and linear regression models with stepwise backward selection. Predictive ability of these models was determined with R-squared (R²) and area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve (AUC) statistics.

Results

Age, NIHSS score on admission, and heart failure were the only common predictors across all three case-mix adjustment models. Specific predictors for the EQ-5D index score were sex (β = 0.041), socio-economic status (β = − 0.019) and nationality (β = − 0.074). R²-values for the regression models for mortality (5 predictors), mRS score (9 predictors) and EQ-5D utility score (12 predictors), were respectively R² = 0.44, R² = 0.42 and R² = 0.37.

Conclusions

The set of case-mix adjustment variables for the EQ-5D at three months differed considerably from the set for clinical outcomes in stroke care. The case-mix adjustment variables that were specific to this PROM were sex, socio-economic status and nationality. These variables should be considered in future attempts to risk-adjust for PROMs during benchmarking of hospitals.

Item reduction of the patient-rated wrist evaluation using decision tree modelling

Background: The aim of this study is to assess the viability of a decision tree version of an often used questionnaire to measure wrist pain and disability, the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation.Methods: Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation scores were collected from a cohort of 10394 patients who are part of a routine outcome measurement system. A decision tree version of the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) was created. The intraclass correlation was used to evaluate the inter-version reliability between the original PRWE and the decision tree version.Results: The decision tree reduced the number of questions from 5 to 3 for the pain subscale, and from 10 to 3 for the disability subscale. The intraclass correlation between the original PRWE and the decision tree version was 0.97. The mean difference between the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation and the decision tree Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation total sumscore was 0.35 (95% CI -9.92-10.62).Conclusions: We found that the decision tree was successful at reducing the items of the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation from fifteen to only six questions with very high similarity to the scores of the full questionnaire.Implications for rehabilitationThe Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation can reliably be used with 6 instead of 15 questions.Decision trees are useful statistical tools to shorten lengthy questionnaires, especially when large amounts of data are available.Having a shortened Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation saves patients and clinicians time in answering this specific questionnaire.

Implementation of Value Based Breast Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Adding value of care to patients is crucial for all stakeholders. The use of both provider and patient reported outcome data was implemented in a single academic breast cancer center. We describe the development of the outcomes set, data integration within electronical health records (EHR) and clinical use.

METHODS

An Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) was constructed providing the full care cycle for breast cancer patients. Provider reported outcomes and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were defined, reflecting the entire cycle of care and long-term sustainability of quality of life. Multidisciplinary provider and patient perspectives were obtained via focus groups and surveys. Patient pathways were redesigned in order to identify suitable opportunities for data collection during the entire care cycle.

RESULTS

A Standard Set for Breast Cancer Outcomes together with case-mix variables and timelines was agreed upon within the IPU. A secure electronic platform, directly linked to the EHR, was designed to measure PROs during the outpatient phase. First year evaluation showed a decrease of response rates over time, from 83.3% at baseline to 45.2% at 12 months after surgery. Patients reacted positively to the use of PROMs in daily clinical cancer care.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of patient reported as well as provider reported outcomes was implemented within our standard of breast cancer care. For this, dedicated resources, change of culture and practice, and improved knowledge and awareness about Value-based healthcare (VBHC) were essential. Our proposed framework aims to serve as a blueprint for implementation of VBHC in daily care.

Patient-reported outcome measures among breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional comparison between Malaysia and high-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-income countries (HICs) suggest that physical, emotional, and psychological needs are important in cancer care. To date, there have been few inconsistent descriptions of PROs in low-income and middle-income Asian countries. Using a standard questionnaire developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), we compared the perceived importance of PROs between patients in Malaysia and those in HICs and between clusters of Malaysian women.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients.

RESULTS

The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P < 0.001). Cluster analysis suggests that older, parous, Malaysian women, who were less likely to have received breast reconstructive surgery, were more likely to rate body image and satisfaction with the breast as very important outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the differences in PROs by cultural and socioeconomic settings could improve patient expectation of services and refine the assessment of cancer care outcomes.

Select Choices in Benign Breast Disease: An Initiative of the American Society of Breast Surgeons for the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely® Campaign

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of all women encounter benign breast problems. In contrast to breast cancer, high-level evidence is not available to guide treatment. Management is therefore largely based on individual physician experience/training. The American board of internal medicine (ABIM) initiated its Choosing Wisely^® campaign to promote conversations between patients and physicians about challenging the use of tests or procedures which may not be necessary. The American society of breast surgeons (ASBrS) Patient safety and quality committee (PSQC) chose to participate in this campaign in regard to the management of benign breast disease.

METHODS

The PSQC solicited initial candidate measures. PSQC surgeons represent a wide variety of practices. The resulting measures were ranked by modified Delphi appropriateness methodology in two rounds. The final list was approved by ASBrS and endorsed by the ABIM.

RESULTS

The final five measures are as follows. (1) Don't routinely excise areas of pseuodoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast in patients who are not having symptoms from it. (2) Don't routinely surgically excise biopsy-proven fibroadenomas that are < 2 cm. (3) Don't routinely operate for a breast abscess without an initial attempt to percutaneously aspirate. (4) Don't perform screening mammography in asymptomatic patients with normal exams who have less than a 5-years life expectancy. (5) Don't routinely drain nonpainful, fluid-filled cysts.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASBrS Choosing Wisely^® measures that address benign breast disease management are easily accessible to patients via the internet. Consensus was reached by PSQC regarding these recommendations. These measures provide guidance for shared decision-making.

The American Society of Breast Surgeons and Quality Payment Programs: Ranking, Defining, and Benchmarking More Than 1 Million Patient Quality Measure Encounters

BACKGROUND

To identify and remediate gaps in the quality of surgical care, the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) developed surgeon-specific quality measures (QMs), built a patient registry, and nominated itself to become a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR), thereby linking surgical performance to potential reimbursement and public reporting. This report provides a summary of the program development.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi process, more than 100 measures of care quality were ranked. In compliance with CMS rules, selected QMs were specified with inclusion, exclusion, and exception criteria, then incorporated into an electronic patient registry. After surgeons entered QM data into the registry, the ASBrS provided real-time peer performance comparisons.

RESULTS

After ranking, 9 of 144 measures of quality were chosen, submitted, and subsequently accepted by CMS as a QCDR in 2014. The measures selected were diagnosis of cancer by needle biopsy, surgical-site infection, mastectomy reoperation rate, and appropriateness of specimen imaging, intraoperative specimen orientation, sentinel node use, hereditary assessment, antibiotic choice, and antibiotic duration. More than 1 million patient-measure encounters were captured from 2010 to 2015. Benchmarking functionality with peer performance comparison was successful. In 2016, the ASBrS provided public transparency on its website for the 2015 performance reported by our surgeon participants.

CONCLUSIONS

In an effort to improve quality of care and to participate in CMS quality payment programs, the ASBrS defined QMs, tracked compliance, provided benchmarking, and reported breast-specific QMs to the public.

Value-Based Care in the Worldwide Battle Against Cancer

Globally, an increasing and aging population is contributing to the prevalence of cancer. To be effective, cancer care needs to involve the coordination of multidisciplinary specialties, and also needs to be affordable, accessible, and capable of producing optimal patient outcomes. Porter and Teisberg (2006) have postulated that shifting current healthcare strategies from volume-based to patient-centric care redirects economic competition to providing treatments which promote the best patient outcomes while driving down costs. Therefore, the value in value-based healthcare (VBH) is defined as patient outcome per currency spent on providing care. Based on the experiences of healthcare organizations currently transitioning to the value-based system, this review details actionable guidelines to transition current cancer care practices to the value-based system in four main steps: by defining universal clinical and patient-reported measures, creating cancer-specific units that provide the full care cycle, establishing a data capture model to routinely determine the value of the care delivered, and continually improving treatment strategies through research. As healthcare providers in more developed countries move to value-based care, those located in less developed countries should also be assisted in their transition to relieve the cancer burden globally.

Evaluating Frameworks That Provide Value Measures for Health Care Interventions

The recent acceleration of scientific discovery has led to greater choices in health care. New technologies, diagnostic tests, and pharmaceuticals have widely varying impact on patients and populations in terms of benefits, toxicities, and costs, stimulating a resurgence of interest in the creation of frameworks intended to measure value in health. Many of these are offered by providers and/or advocacy organizations with expertise and interest in specific diseases (e.g., cancer and heart disease). To help assess the utility of and the potential biases embedded in these frameworks, we created an evaluation taxonomy with seven basic components: 1) define the purpose; 2) detail the conceptual approach, including perspectives, methods for obtaining preferences of decision makers (e.g., patients), and ability to incorporate multiple dimensions of value; 3) discuss inclusions and exclusions of elements included in the framework, and whether the framework assumes clinical intervention or offers alternatives such as palliative care or watchful waiting; 4) evaluate data sources and their scientific validity; 5) assess the intervention's effect on total costs of treating a defined population; 6) analyze how uncertainty is incorporated; and 7) illuminate possible conflicts of interest among those creating the framework. We apply the taxonomy to four representative value frameworks recently published by professional organizations focused on treatment of cancer and heart disease and on vaccine use. We conclude that each of these efforts has strengths and weaknesses when evaluated using our taxonomy, and suggest pathways to enhance the utility of value-assessing frameworks for policy and clinical decision making.

The evolving potential of companion diagnostics

The scope of companion diagnostics in cancer has undergone significant shifts in the past few years, with increased development of targeted therapies and novel testing platforms. This has provided new opportunities to effect unprecedented paradigm shifts in the application of personalized medicine principles for patients with cancer. These shifts involve assay platforms, analytes, regulations, and therapeutic approaches. As opportunities involving each of these facets of companion diagnostics expand, close collaborations between key stakeholders should be enhanced to ensure optimal performance characteristics and patient outcomes.

Measures of Appropriateness and Value for Breast Surgeons and Their Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Choosing Wisely (®) Initiative

BACKGROUND

Current breast cancer care is based on high-level evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Despite these data, there continues to be variability of breast cancer care, including overutilization of some tests and operations. To reduce overutilization, the American Board of Internal Medicine Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign recommends that professional organizations provide patients and providers with a list of care practices that may not be necessary. Shared decision making regarding these services is encouraged.

METHODS

The Patient Safety and Quality Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) solicited candidate measures for the Choosing Wisely (®) Campaign. The resulting list of "appropriateness" measures of care was ranked by a modified Delphi appropriateness methodology. The highest-ranked measures were submitted to and later approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors. They are listed below.

RESULTS

(1) Don't routinely order breast magnetic resonance imaging in new breast cancer patients. (2) Don't routinely excise all the lymph nodes beneath the arm in patients having lumpectomy for breast cancer. (3) Don't routinely order specialized tumor gene testing in all new breast cancer patients. (4) Don't routinely reoperate on patients with invasive cancer if the cancer is close to the edge of the excised lumpectomy tissue. (5) Don't routinely perform a double mastectomy in patients who have a single breast with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASBrS list for the Choosing Wisely (®) campaign is easily accessible to breast cancer patients online. These measures provide surgeons and their patients with a starting point for shared decision making regarding potentially unnecessary testing and operations.