Search

Background: Pharmacy board certification provides pharmacists with formal recognition of their careers and their involvement in direct and comprehensive patient care. Credentialing as a board-certified pharmacist demonstrates that the pharmacist has specialized expertise and is able to provide advanced level patient care in a specific pharmacy practice specialty. There is currently not a community pharmacy board certification available in the United States. With the expanding role and clinical expectations of community pharmacists nationwide, perspectives regarding the utility of a community pharmacy specialty board certification are necessary. Methods: A cross-sectional survey with demographic and perception questions (5-point Likert scale) was distributed electronically via Qualtrics. A random sample of pharmacists registered in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Nebraska were selected and surveyed. Results: 53 survey responses were collected. There was a statistically significant difference in board certification history (P =.001) and history of post-graduate training (P <.001) between community pharmacists and non-community pharmacists. Community pharmacists were more likely to simultaneously see community pharmacists as general practitioners (P =.030) and as pharmacy practice specialists (P =.001). Non-community pharmacists were more likely to be familiar with current maintenance requirements for pharmacy board certifications (P <.001) and to feel that a board certification is an appropriate indicator of experience in a pharmacy specialty area (P =.016). Conclusion: Views regarding community pharmacy and board certification differed between community and non-community pharmacists. There was not a statistically significant difference in the perceived value of community pharmacy board certification between community and non-community pharmacist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Breast MRI is a valuable imaging modality that plays a critical role in the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer. The superior sensitivity of breast MRI allows for more accurate evaluation of the extent of disease for breast cancer, which is important in an era where de-escalation of treatment is being considered and offered. In this review, we provided a detailed overview of breast MRI and its clinical utility in the management of breast cancer as a foundation for its use in the field of radiation oncology. Specifically, we describe breast MRI technique, anatomy, common breast MR imaging findings, and the role of breast MRI in assessing extent of disease and tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy. There has been increased interest in the use of MRI during radiotherapy treatment planning and delivery for patients with early-stage breast cancer as it may allow for more personalized radiotherapy. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI has an established role in aiding in the detection, evaluation, and management of breast cancer. This article discusses MRI sequences, the clinical utility of MRI, and how MRI has been evaluated for use in breast radiotherapy treatment planning. We highlight the contribution of MRI in the decision-making regarding selecting appropriate candidates for breast conservation therapy and review the emerging role of MRI-guided breast radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: There is paucity of data on the optimal management of brain metastases in older women ≥65 years old with breast cancer. In this single-institutional retrospective study, we assessed the survival outcomes and treatment patterns of breast cancer patients ≥65 years old with brain metastases and compared them to younger patients. A total of 112 patients were included. Treatment-related adverse events were similar in both groups. Although older women had a poorer median overall survival compared to younger women (9.5 vs. 14.5 months), survival was similar after adjusting for KPS, extracranial progression, and systemic therapy; and there was no difference in rates of intracranial PFS, neurological deaths, and leptomeningeal disease in the different age groups. This study suggests that age alone may not play an independent role in treatment-selection and that outcomes for breast cancer patients with brain metastases and personalized decision-making including a comprehensive geriatric assessment should be considered. Background: Breast cancer is the second most common cause of brain metastases (BM). Despite increasing incidence of BM in older women, there are limited data on the optimal management of BM in this age group. In this study, we assessed the survival outcomes and treatment patterns of older breast cancer patients ≥65 years old with BM compared to younger patients at our institution. Methods: An IRB-approved single-institutional retrospective review of biopsy-proven breast cancer patients with BM treated with 1- to 5-fraction stereotactic radiation therapy (SRS) from 2015 to 2020 was performed. Primary endpoint was intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) defined as the time interval between the end of SRS to the date of the first CNS progression. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) from the end of SRS and radiation treatment patterns. Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazard regression method were used for survival analyses. Results: A total of 112 metastatic breast cancer patients with BMs were included of which 24 were ≥65 years old and 88 were <65 years old. Median age at RT was 72 years (range 65–84) compared to 52 years (31–64) in younger patients. There were significantly higher number of older women with ER/PR positive disease (75% vs. 49%, p = 0.036), while younger patients were more frequently triple negative (32% vs. 12%, p = 0.074) and HER2 positive (42% vs. 29%, p = 0.3). Treatment-related adverse events were similar in both groups. Overall, 14.3% patients had any grade radiation necrosis (RN) (older vs. young: 8.3% vs. 16%, p = 0.5) while 5.4% had grade 3 or higher RN (0% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.7). Median OS after RT was poorer in older patients compared to younger patients (9.5 months vs. 14.5 months, p = 0.037), while intracranial PFS from RT was similar between the two groups (9.7 months vs. 7.1 months, p = 0.580). On univariate analysis, significant predictors of OS were age ≥65 years old (hazard risk, HR = 1.70, p = 0.048), KPS ≤ 80 (HR = 2.24, p < 0.001), HER2 positive disease (HR = 0.46, p < 0.001), isolated CNS metastatic disease (HR = 0.29, p < 0.001), number of brain metastases treated with RT (HR = 1.06, p = 0.028), and fractionated SRS (HR = 0.53, p = 0.013). On multivariable analysis, KPS ≤ 80, HER2 negativity and higher number of brain metastases predicted for poorer survival, while age was not a significant factor for OS after adjusting for other variables. Patients who received systemic therapy after SRS had a significantly improved OS on univariate and multivariable analysis (HR = 0.32, p < 0.001). Number of brain metastases treated was the only factor predictive of worse PFS (HR = 1.06, p = 0.041), which implies a 6% additive risk of progression for every additional metastasis treated. Conclusions: Although older women had poorer OS than younger women, OS was similar after adjusting for KPS, extracranial progression, and systemic therapy; and there was no difference in rates of intracranial PFS, neurological deaths, and LMD in the different age groups. This study suggests that age alone may not play an independent role in treatment-selection and that outcomes for breast cancer patients with BMs and personalized decision-making including other clinical factors should be considered. Future studies are warranted to assess neurocognitive outcomes and other radiation treatment toxicities in older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]