Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Canadian breast cancer guidelines are as effective as possible under the circumstances

Eva Grunfeld
CMAJ March 13, 2007 176 (6) 785-786; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070164
Eva Grunfeld
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2007 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Clinical practice guidelines systematically synthesize overwhelming and sometimes conflicting medical research into a cogent statement to guide clinical decisions: However, the million dollar question remains unanswered — are guidelines effective? Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines are all steps on the path to the Holy Grail of consistent, evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice. This, however, does not mean complete uniformity in decision-making, since some variation in care, reflecting local circumstances, clinical judgment and patient particulars, is appropriate.1,2 Internationally, there are a number of large organizations focused on guideline development, including the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. With respect to cancer guidelines, national,3 provincial4 and professional5 organizations all direct substantial resources toward the development, dissemination and maintenance of guidelines.

Among these guidelines are the Canadian Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer,3 which were supported by Health Canada and written by a Steering Committee through a rigorous process. To date, 16 guidelines have been developed: the first 10 were published as a CMAJ supplement in 1998,3 and new guidelines and updates have subsequently been published in CMAJ and are available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/158/3/DC1. The principal medium for dissemination of the guidelines has been the print and online versions of CMAJ. A companion version for patients is available for each guideline in both English and French on the CMAJ Web site and is distributed through Health Canada, physicians' offices and various other organizations. The Steering Committee is no longer operational owing to the end of funding from Health Canada. Several guideline updates that were on the cusp of completion when funding ended remain unpublished.

In this issue, Steven Latosinsky and colleagues report the results of a study designed to determine whether the Canadian breast cancer guidelines have been effective in influencing surgical practice.6 They examined 4 measures of surgical care in the 3 years before and 5 years after introduction of the guidelines in 1998 (2001 for sentinel lymph node biopsy) to determine whether introduction of the guidelines affected either province-wide rates or variation in rates among surgeons in Manitoba. The authors concluded that the rates of the surgical procedures studied were unaffected by introduction of the guidelines. Although there was a reduction in the rate of axillary node dissection in ductal carcinoma in situ after introduction of the guidelines, it was not significant, perhaps because of the small number of cases. The rate of axillary assessment was already appropriately high before guideline introduction; however, the rates of other measures were not high enough (adequacy of axillary node dissection) or were markedly different from rates elsewhere in Canada (breast-conserving surgery).7

The design of this study is both its strength and its weakness. Its strength is the use of a population-based cancer registry, which is a powerful tool that contains complete staging data for all breast cancer patients in Manitoba dating from 1995. Although all provinces maintain population-based cancer registries, few collect data on cancer stages: this is the strength of the Manitoba registry. The weakness is that the use of a population-based administrative database necessitates an observational design, which makes it impossible to fully understand the extent to which mitigating factors (e.g., patient or institutional factors) affected adherence to the guidelines. The authors conclude that there is clinically important variation in care for the measures studied; however, it is difficult to know the extent to which this can be improved without defining achievable benchmarks for each procedure.8 Defining achievable benchmarks would be an important next step in this research.

The findings of the study by Latosinsky and colleagues are consistent with those of other evaluations of surgical care that have found surgical procedure guidelines to be less effective than other clinical guidelines.1,9 In Canada, guidelines on other aspects of cancer care have been more widely adopted into practice.10–12 For some of the surgical procedures studied here, the rates were consistent with good clinical practice even before publication of the guidelines. This reflects the fact that guidelines are a summation of a gradually increasing body of knowledge, much of which had already been adopted in practice. What is disappointing is that both the variations in care and what could be considered less than optimal rates for the other 3 measures persisted despite publication of the guidelines. Does this mean that guidelines are superfluous?

Latosinsky and colleagues rightly conclude that the “no frills” approach to dissemination may have resulted in less than optimal uptake of the guidelines. Disseminating guidelines is very complex2,13 and evaluating their uptake even more so.14 Just as it is recognized that the dissemination “push” must be multifaceted, so too is the “pull” because clinical decisions are an amalgam of many factors.2,7,13,14 To expect clinical practice to change following the simple publication of guidelines, without appreciating the complex factors that may militate against uptake, is unrealistic. Publication of guidelines is one component among many organizational, clinical and professional factors that come into play.1,2,13,14 Understanding the complexity of these factors and addressing them in a tailored way, with a special focus on outliers, is the art and the science of knowledge translation. When guidelines are introduced in the context of broader organizational change, they are an effective way to improve care,13,15 which shows that guidelines are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recognized the need to increase resources for guideline dissemination, given the variable effectiveness of its guidelines.1 In light of this, one can conclude that Canada's breast cancer guidelines are as effective as possible, under the circumstances (to paraphrase the famous winning statement from a CBC Radio contest “as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances”).

@ See related article page 771

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Competing interests: Eva Grunfeld was a member of the Steering Committee on the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer (2001–2006). She is the first author of the 2005 update of Guideline 9 (“Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer”).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, et al. What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews. BMJ 2004;329:999-1004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458-65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer. CMAJ 1998;158(Suppl 3):1-83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Cancer Care Ontario. Program in evidence-based care. Available: www.cancercare.on.ca/index_practiceGuidelines.htm (accessed 2007 Feb 7).
  5. 5.↵
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. Practice guidelines. Available: www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002009,00.asp (accessed 2007 Feb 7).
  6. 6.↵
    Latosinsky S, Fradette K, Lix L, et al. Canadian breast cancer guidelines: Have they made a difference? CMAJ 2007;176(6):771-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, et al. Variations in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in Quebec between 1988 and 1994. CMAJ 1999;161:951-5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Kiefe CI, Weissman NW, Allison JJ, et al. Identifying achievable benchmarks of care: concepts and methodology. Int J Qual Health Care 1998;10:443-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Rakovitch E, Pignol JP, Chartier C, et al. The management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a screened population-based analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;101:335-47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Ong S, Watters JM, Grunfeld E, et al. Predictors of referral for adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. Can J Surg 2005;48:225-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.
    Chua B, Olivotto IA, Weir L, et al. Increased use of adjuvant regional radiotherapy for node-positive breast cancer in British Columbia. Breast J 2004;10:38-44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Hébert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, et al. Compliance with consensus recommendations for systemic therapy is associated with improved survival of women with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3685-93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Mowatt G, Grimshaw JM, Davis DA, et al. Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC). J Contin Educ Health Prof 2001;21:55-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001;39(Suppl 2):112-45.
  15. 15.↵
    Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, de Laroche G, et al. Persistence of medical change at implementation of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a controlled study in a cancer network. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4414-23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 176 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 176, Issue 6
13 Mar 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Canadian breast cancer guidelines are as effective as possible under the circumstances
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Canadian breast cancer guidelines are as effective as possible under the circumstances
Eva Grunfeld
CMAJ Mar 2007, 176 (6) 785-786; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.070164

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Canadian breast cancer guidelines are as effective as possible under the circumstances
Eva Grunfeld
CMAJ Mar 2007, 176 (6) 785-786; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.070164
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • Canadian breast cancer guidelines: Have they made a difference?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Pregnancy, breastfeeding and the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: an ethics-based framework for shared decision-making
  • The case for relaxing no-visitor policies in hospitals during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
  • A “No More Waves” strategy for COVID-19 in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Cancer: breast

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire