Adherence to guidelines and benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with invasive breast cancer: results from a large population-based cohort study of a cancer registry

Guideline concordant therapy improves survival in high-grade endometrial cancer patients

PURPOSE

Data from randomized controlled trials in high-grade endometrial cancer are scarce due to its low prevalence. Therefore, guideline recommendations in this cancer subtype rely on relatively few randomized trials and data from retrospective studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits from guideline-concordant therapy in high-grade endometrial cancer in a real-world patient group.

METHODS

The effect of treatment according to German S3 guidelines and the former S2k guideline on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was evaluated in a cohort of 293 high-grade endometrial cancer patients.

RESULTS

Treatment concordant with the S3 guideline significantly improved OS (HR 0.623, CI 0.420-0.923, p = 0.018) and RFS (HR 0.578, CI 0.387-0.863, p = 0.007). Treatment concordant with the S2k guideline did not result in a significantly higher OS (HR 0.783, CI 0.465-1.316, p = 0.335) or RFS (HR 0.741, CI 0.347-1.740, p = 0.242).

CONCLUSION

Therapy according to the German S3 guideline improved OS and RFS in univariate as well as multivariate analysis in this cohort of high-grade endometrial cancer patients.

The association between guideline adherence, age and overall survival among women with non-metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Conformity with treatment guidelines should benefit patients. Studies have reported variation in adherence to breast cancer (BC) guidelines, particularly among older women. This study investigated (i) whether adherence to treatment guideline recommendations for women with non-metastatic BC improves overall survival (OS), (ii) whether that relationship varies by age.

METHODOLOGY

MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for studies on guideline adherence and OS in women with non-metastatic BC, published after January 2000, which examined recommendations on breast surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy or endocrine therapy. Study results were summarised using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The recommendations for each treatment covered were similar, but studies differed in their definitions of adherence. 5-year OS rates among patients having compliant treatment ranged from 91.3% to 93.2%, while rates among patients having non-compliant treatment ranged from 75.9% to 83.4%. Six studies reported an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for non-compliant treatment compared with compliant treatment; all concluded OS was worse among patients whose overall treatment was non-compliant (aHR range: 1.52 [1.30-1.82] to 2.57 [1.96-3.37]), but adjustment for potential confounders was limited. Worse adherence among older women was reported in 12/16 studies, but they did not provide consistent evidence on whether OS was associated with treatment adherence and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual studies reported that better adherence to guidelines improved OS among women with non-metastatic BC, but the evidence base has weaknesses including inconsistent definitions of adherence. More precise and consistent research designs, including the evaluation of barriers to adherence across the spectrum of healthcare practice, are required to fully understand guideline compliance, as well as the relationship between compliance and OS following a BC diagnosis.

Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs.

METHODS

We searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.59-0.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5 years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42018092884 ).

Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review

Purpose

Clinical guidelines’ (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers’ adherence.

Methods

We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics.

Results

Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8–67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68–77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10–80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87–92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers’ adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones.

Registration:

PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05657-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.