HonCode

Go Back   HER2 Support Group Forums > her2group
Register Gallery FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-28-2009, 09:11 AM   #1
Margerie
Senior Member
 
Margerie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 492
Level of Evidence/Strength of Recommendations USPSTF

Current Methods USPSTF


Level of Evidence

Here is the summary:Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Ann Intern Med. November 17, 2009;151:716-726.

In a statement that has received much recent attention in the lay press, the USPSTF updated their 2002 recommendations regarding screening for breast cancer in the general population. Their recommendations are as follows:

Recommend against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation).

Recommend biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation).

Recommend that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement).

Recommend that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement).

Recommend against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation).

Here's an explanation of their rating system:

Each recommendation is linked to a letter grade that reflects the magnitude of net benefit and the strength of the evidence supporting the provision of the specific preventive service. The recommendation is graded from "A" (strongly recommended) to "D" (recommended against). When the evidence is insufficient to determine net benefit, the Task Force assigns a grade of "I."

For more information on the ratings system, go to:

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ratings.htmGrade Definitions
Strength of Recommendations
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grades its recommendations according to one of five classifications (A, B, C, D, I) reflecting the strength of evidence and magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms).


A.- The USPSTF strongly recommends that clinicians provide [the service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF found good evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits substantially outweigh harms.

B.- The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide [this service] to eligible patients. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] improves important health outcomes and concludes that benefits outweigh harms.

C.- The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine provision of [the service]. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] can improve health outcomes but concludes that the balance of benefits and harms is too close to justify a general recommendation.

D.- The USPSTF recommends against routinely providing [the service] to asymptomatic patients. The USPSTF found at least fair evidence that [the service] is ineffective or that harms outweigh benefits.

I.- The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely providing [the service]. Evidence that the [service] is effective is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
Quality of Evidence

The USPSTF grades the quality of the overall evidence for a service on a 3-point scale (good, fair, poor):
Good: Evidence includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative populations that directly assess effects on health outcomes.

Fair: Evidence is sufficient to determine effects on health outcomes, but the strength of the evidence is limited by the number, quality, or consistency of the individual studies, generalizability to routine practice, or indirect nature of the evidence on health outcomes.

Poor: Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of limited number or power of studies, important flaws in their design or conduct, gaps in the chain of evidence, or lack of information on important health outcomes.
__________________
Are we there yet?


Dx 10/05 IDC, multi-focal, triple +, 5 nodes+
MRM, 4 DD A/C, 12 weekly taxol + herceptin
rads concurrent with taxol/herceptin
finished herceptin 01/08
ooph, Arimidex, bilateral DIEP reconstruction
NED
Univ. of WA, Seattle vaccine trial '07
Margerie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 09:21 AM   #2
hutchibk
Senior Member
 
hutchibk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,519
Re: Level of Evidence/Strength of Recommendations USPSTF

Thanks, interesting.

And I still fail to see how "Recommend against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation)" rates a "recommend against" ~ where is the harm in a doctor taking 5 minutes to teach a young woman how to do this?
__________________
Brenda

NOV 2012 - 9 yr anniversary
JULY 2012 - 7 yr anniversary stage IV (of 50...)

Nov'03~ dX stage 2B
Dec'03~
Rt side mastectomy, Her2+, ER/PR+, 10 nodes out, one node positive
Jan'04~
Taxotere/Adria/Cytoxan x 6, NED, no Rads, Tamox. 1 year, Arimadex 3 mo., NED 14 mo.
Sept'05~
micro mets lungs/chest nodes/underarm node, Switched to Aromasin, T/C/H x 7, NED 6 months - Herceptin only
Aug'06~
micro mets chest nodes, & bone spot @ C3 neck, Added Taxol to Herceptin
Feb'07~ Genetic testing, BRCA 1&2 neg

Apr'07~
MRI - two 9mm brain mets & 5 punctates, new left chest met, & small increase of bone spot C3 neck, Stopped Aromasin
May'07~
Started Tykerb/Xeloda, no WBR for now
June'07~
MRI - stable brain mets, no new mets, 9mm spots less enhanced, CA15.3 down 45.5 to 9.3 in 10 wks, Ty/Xel working magic!
Aug'07~
MRI - brain mets shrunk half, NO NEW BRAIN METS!!, TMs stable @ 9.2
Oct'07~
PET/CT & MRI show NED
Apr'08~
scans still show NED in the head, small bone spot on right iliac crest (rear pelvic bone)
Sept'08~
MRI shows activity in brain mets, completed 5 fractions/5 consecutive days of IMRT to zap the pesky buggers
Oct'08~
dropped Xeloda, switched to tri-weekly Herceptin in combo with Tykerb, extend to tri-monthly Zometa infusion
Dec'08~
Brain MRI- 4 spots reduced to punctate size, large spot shrunk by 3mm, CT of torso clear/pelvis spot stable
June'09~
new 3-4mm left cerrebellar spot zapped with IMRT targeted rads
Sept'09~
new 6mm & 1 cm spots in pituitary/optic chiasm area. Rx= 25 days of 3D conformal fractionated targeted IMRT to the tumors.
Oct'09~
25 days of low dose 3D conformal fractionated targeted IMRT to the bone mets spot on rt. iliac crest that have been watching for 2 years. Added daily Aromasin back into treatment regimen.
Apr'10~ Brain MRI clear! But, see new small spot on adrenal gland. Change from Aromasin back to Tamoxifen.
June'10~ Tumor markers (CA15.3) dropped from 37 to 23 after one month on Tamoxifen. Continue to monitor adrenal gland spot. Remain on Tykerb/Herceptin/Tamoxifen.
Nov'10~ Radiate positive mediastinal node that was pressing on recurrent laryngeal nerve, causing paralyzed larynx and a funny voice.
Jan'11~ MRI shows possible activity or perhaps just scar tissue/necrotic increase on 3 previously treated brain spots and a pituitary spot. 5 days of IMRT on 4 spots.
Feb'11~ Enrolled in T-DM1 EAP in Denver, first treatment March 25, 2011.
Mar'11~ Finally started T-DM1 EAP in Denver at Rocky Mountain Cancer Center/Rose on Mar. 25... hallelujah.

"I would rather be anecdotally alive than statistically dead."
hutchibk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright HER2 Support Group 2007 - 2021
free webpage hit counter