What influences healthcare professionals' treatment preferences for older women with operable breast cancer? An application of the discrete choice experiment

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Older Adult Patients

Decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for older adults with breast cancer is a challenge because older adult patients often have poor physical health, frailty, and age-related comorbidities, which can compromise treatment outcome. Due to these considerations, doctors tend to use less chemotherapy for breast cancer in older adults. However, older patients in good general health could still benefit from chemotherapy. Careful benefit-risk assessment is essential to provide best care for each older adult patient. Due to a rapidly aging population, breast cancer in older adults is becoming a serious public health issue in China. In this mini review, we discuss the need, means, and tools to assess the benefits and risks of adjuvant chemotherapy in older adults with breast cancer. The contents of this review may drive decision-making with regard to the use and selection of adjuvant chemotherapy for older adult patients in China who are fit for the treatment.

A nomogram for predicting breast cancer specific survival in elderly patients with breast cancer: a SEER population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of elderly patients diagnosed with breast cancer is increasing worldwide. However, treatment decisions for these patients are highly variable. Although researchers have identified the effects of surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, and chemotherapy in elderly patients with breast cancer, clinicians still struggle to make appropriate decisions for these patients.

METHODS

We identified 75,525 female breast cancer patients aged ≥ 70 years in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database treated between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. The patients were further divided into training and testing cohorts. The cumulative occurrence of breast cancer-specific deaths (BCSDs) and other cause-specific deaths (OCSD) was calculated using the cumulative incidence function. In the univariate analysis, risk factors were screened using the Fine-Gray model. In the multivariate analysis for competing risks, the sub-distribution hazard ratio with a 95% confidence interval for each independent predictor associated with BCSD was calculated for the construction of nomograms. Based on the above analyses, a competing risk nomogram was constructed to predict the probability of BCSD in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th years after treatment. During validation, the concordance index (C-index) was selected to quantify the predictive ability of the competing risk model.

RESULTS

A total of 33,118 patients were included in this study, with 24,838 in the training group and 8,280 in the testing group. Age, race, marital status, cancer grade, tumor stage, node stage, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor--2 status, and treatment including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy were used to establish a nomogram. The C-index of 0.852 (0.842-0.862) in the training cohort and 0.876 (0.868-0.892) in the testing cohort indicated satisfactory discriminative ability of the nomogram. Calibration plots showed favorable consistency between the nomogram predictions and actual observations in both the training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified independent predictors of BCSD in elderly patients with breast cancer. A prognostic nomogram was developed and validated to aid clinical decision-making.

Assessment of the Androgen Receptor in Older Women with Primary Breast Cancer: Association with a Panel of Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Specific Survival

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer in older women tends to have more favourable biology, compared to younger women. Androgen receptor (AR) is significant for breast tumour carcinogenesis; however, the role of AR in older women has not been fully explored.

METHODS

Surgical specimens were obtained from an existing series of 1758 older women (≥ 70 years) with primary breast cancer, treated in a single institution with long-term (≥ 37 years) follow-up. As part of previous work, it was possible to construct good quality tissue microarrays (TMAs) in 575 surgical specimens and a panel of 24 biomarkers was measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in these TMAs. AR positivity was assessed by IHC and defined as H-score ≥ 40. The relationship between AR in this cohort was compared to an equivalent group of younger women (< 70 years, n = 1708); the panel of 24 biomarkers and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) in the older cohort.

RESULTS

AR was assessed in 509 samples. Overall, 59% of the older women cohort had positive expression of AR, compared to 63% in the younger cohort. AR positivity (regardless of age) was associated with smaller size of tumour, lower grade of tumour, lower tubule formation, lower nuclear polymorphism and lower mitotic frequency. AR positivity was associated with positive expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1), cytokeratin (CK) 7/8, CK18, CK19, B cell lymphoma (Bcl)2 and Mucin 1 (Muc1) expression. Conversely, AR-positive expression was associated with negative expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki-67, CK5, CK17, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and CD44 expression. Older women with AR-positive tumours had better BCSS compared to AR-negative tumours (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in AR expression between older and younger women with breast cancer. AR has prognostic potential in terms of BCSS. Further work is needed to investigate AR as a therapeutic target.

Intervention to reduce age bias in medical students' decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer: A novel approach to bias training

Objectives: Despite NICE guidelines to 'treat people with invasive breast cancer, irrespective of age, with surgery and appropriate systemic therapy, rather than endocrine therapy alone', older patients receive differential treatment and experience worse outcomes. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and potentially perpetuating disparities across society, including in healthcare. Yet age bias has rarely been considered as an explanatory factor in poorer outcomes for older breast cancer patients nor, consequentially, has removing age bias been considered as an approach to improving outcomes. Many organizations carry out bias training with the aim of reducing negative impacts from biased decision making, yet the few evaluations of these interventions have mostly seen small or negative effects. This study explores whether a novel intervention to address age bias leads to better quality decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer.Methods: An online study compared medical students' treatment recommendations for older breast cancer patients and the reasoning for their decision making before and after a novel bias training intervention. Thirty-one medical students participated in the study.Results: The results show that the bias training intervention led medical students to make better quality decisions for older breast cancer patients. The quality of decision making was measured by decreases in age-based decision making and increased efforts to include patients in decision making. These results suggest there is value in exploring whether if anti-bias training interventions could usefully be applied in other areas of practice where older patients experience poorer outcomes.Conclusions: This study evidences that bias training improves the quality of decision making by medical students in respect of older breast cancer patients. The study findings show promise that this novel approach to bias training might usefully be applied to all medical practitioners making treatment recommendations for older patients.

Surgeon preference for treatment allocation in older people facing major gastrointestinal surgery: an application of the discrete choice experiment methodology

AIM

Variation in major gastrointestinal surgery rates in the older population suggests heterogeneity in surgical management. A higher prevalence of comorbidities, frailty and cognitive impairments in the older population may account for some variation. The aim of this study was to determine surgeon preference for major surgery versus conservative management in hypothetical patient scenarios based on key attributes.

METHOD

A survey was designed according to the discrete choice methodology guided by a separate qualitative study. Questions were designed to test for associations between key attributes (age, comorbidity, urgency of presentation, pathology, functional and cognitive status) and treatment preference for major gastrointestinal surgery versus conservative management. The survey consisting of 18 hypothetical scenarios was disseminated electronically to UK gastrointestinal surgeons. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify associations between the attributes and treatment preference.

RESULTS

In total, 103 responses were received after 256 visits to the questionnaire site (response rate 40.2%). Participants answered 1847 out of the 1854 scenarios (99.6%). There was a preference for major surgery in 1112/1847 (60.2%) of all scenarios. Severe comorbidities (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.030; P = 0.000), severe cognitive impairment (OR 0.001, 95% CI 0.000-0.033; P = 0.000) and age 85 years and above (OR 0.028, 95% CI 0.005-0.168; P = 0.000) were all significant in the decision not to offer major gastrointestinal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated variation in surgical treatment preference according to key attributes in hypothetical scenarios. The development of fitness-stratified guidelines may help to reduce variation in surgical practice in the older population.

Cancer care for people with dementia: Literature overview and recommendations for practice and research

As many countries experience population aging, patients with cancer are becoming older and have more preexisting comorbidities, which include prevalent, age-related, chronic conditions such as dementia. People living with dementia (PLWD) are vulnerable to health disparities, and dementia has high potential to complicate and adversely affect care and outcomes across the cancer trajectory. This report offers an overview of dementia and its prevalence among patients with cancer and a summary of the research literature examining cancer care for PLWD. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD are more likely to have cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage, receive no or less extensive cancer treatment, and have poorer survival after a cancer diagnosis. These cancer disparities do not necessarily signify inappropriately later diagnosis or lower treatment of people with dementia as a group, and they are arguably less feasible and appropriate targets for care optimization. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD also have an increased risk of cancer-related emergency presentations, lower quality processes of cancer-related decision making, accessibility-related barriers to cancer investigations and treatment, higher experienced treatment burden and higher caregiver burden for families, and undertreated cancer-related pain. The authors propose that optimal cancer care for PLWD should focus on proactively minimizing these risk areas and thus must be highly person-centered, with holistic decision making, individualized reasonable adjustments to practice, and strong inclusion and support of family carers. Comprehensive recommendations are made for clinical practice and future research to help clinicians and providers deliver best and equitable cancer care for PLWD and their families.

Is there evidence of age bias in breast cancer health care professionals' treatment of older patients?

OBJECTIVES

Despite NICE (2009; 2018) guidelines to treat breast cancer patients 'irrespective of age', older women experience differential treatment and worse outcomes beyond that which can be explained by patient health or patient choice. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and perhaps perpetuating disparities across society, including in healthcare. Yet age bias has rarely been considered as an explanatory factor in poorer outcomes for older breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This mixed methods study explored age bias amongst breast cancer HCPs through four components: 1) An implicit associations test (31 HCPs) 2) A treatment recommendations questionnaire (46 HCPs). 3) An attitudes about older patients questionnaire (31 HCPs). 4) A treatment recommendations interview (20 HCPs).

RESULTS

This study showed that breast cancer HCPs held negative implicit associations towards older women; HCPs were less likely to recommend surgery for older patients; some HCPs held assumptions that older patients are more afraid, less willing and able to be involved in decision-making, and are less willing and able to cope with being informed of a poor treatment prognosis; and conditions which disproportionately affect older patients, such as dementia, are not always well understood by breast cancer HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that there are elements of age bias present amongst breast cancer HCPs. The study's findings of age-based assumptions and a poorer understanding of conditions which disproportionately affect older patients align with patterns of differential treatment towards older breast cancer patients suggesting that age bias may be, at least in part, driving differential treatment.

Breast Cancer in Geriatric Patients: Current Landscape and Future Prospects

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed among women worldwide and more than half are diagnosed above the age of 60 years. Life expectancy is increasing and the number of breast cancer cases diagnosed among older women are expected to increase. Undertreatment, mostly due to unjustifiable fears of advanced-age and associated comorbidities, is commonly practiced in this group of patients who are under-represented in clinical trials and their management is not properly addressed in clinical practice guidelines. With modern surgery and anesthesia, breast surgeries are considered safe and is usually associated with very low complication rates, regardless of extent of surgery. However, oncoplastic surgery and management of the axilla can be tailored based on patients'- and disease-related factors. Most of chemotherapeutic agents, along with targeted therapy and anti-Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) drugs can be safely given for older patients, however, dose adjustment and close monitoring of potential adverse events might be needed. The recently introduced cyclin-D kinase (CDK) 4/6-inhibitors in combination with aromatase inhibitors (AI) or fulvestrant, which changed the landscape of breast cancer therapy, are both safe and effective in older patients and had substituted more aggressive and potentially toxic interventions. Despite its proven efficacy, adjusting or even omitting adjuvant radiation therapy, at least in low-risk older patients, is safe and frequently practiced. In this paper, we review existing data related to breast cancer management among older patients across the continuum; from resection of the primary tumor through adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation and endocrine therapy up to the management of recurrent and advanced-stage disease.

Caregiver experiences of making treatment decisions for older women with breast cancer and dementia

Family caregivers are an important source of support for older people living with dementia, especially when faced with a new diagnosis of cancer. Little is currently known about the caregiver role in facilitating treatment discussions, and the factors that underpin breast cancer treatment decision-making in older patients. This study used a sequential explanatory mixed method approach to explore the role of family caregivers in making cancer treatment decisions for older women (aged over 70 years) with pre-existing dementia and primary operable breast cancer. Thirteen caregivers participated in the study (13 completed a postal questionnaire; eight questionnaire respondents participated in a semi-structured interview). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and the Framework Approach was used to analyse qualitative findings and identify themes. Three themes were generated: (a) Clinical interactions, information and support; (b) Treatment decision-making processes and (c) Influences on treatment choice. These findings highlight the complexities that caregivers face when navigating cancer treatment options and their role in facilitating treatment decisions.

Improving outcomes for women aged 70 years or above with early breast cancer: research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

In breast cancer management, age-related practice variation is widespread, with older women having lower rates of surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, based on the premise of reduced treatment tolerance and benefit. This may contribute to inferior outcomes. There are currently no age- and fitness-stratified guidelines on which to base treatment recommendations.

Aim

We aimed to optimise treatment choice and outcomes for older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with operable breast cancer.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) determine the age, comorbidity, frailty, disease stage and biology thresholds for endocrine therapy alone versus surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, or adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy, for older women with breast cancer; (2) optimise survival outcomes for older women by improving the quality of treatment decision-making; (3) develop and evaluate a decision support intervention to enhance shared decision-making; and (4) determine the degree and causes of treatment variation between UK breast units.

Design

A prospective cohort study was used to determine age and fitness thresholds for treatment allocation. Mixed-methods research was used to determine the information needs of older women to develop a decision support intervention. A cluster-randomised trial was used to evaluate the impact of this decision support intervention on treatment choices and outcomes. Health economic analysis was used to evaluate the cost–benefit ratio of different treatment strategies according to age and fitness criteria. A mixed-methods study was used to determine the degree and causes of variation in treatment allocation.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were enhanced age- and fitness-specific decision support leading to improved quality-of-life outcomes in older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with early breast cancer.

Results

(1) Cohort study: the study recruited 3416 UK women aged ≥ 70 years (median age 77 years). Follow-up was 52 months. (a) The surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone comparison: 2854 out of 3416 (88%) women had oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, 2354 of whom received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy and 500 received endocrine therapy alone. Patients treated with endocrine therapy alone were older and frailer than patients treated with surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy. Unmatched overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival were higher in the surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy group (overall survival: hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.33; p < 0.001; breast-cancer-specific survival: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.58; p < 0.001) than in the endocrine therapy alone group. In matched analysis, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was still associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.98; p = 0.04) than endocrine therapy alone, but not with better breast-cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.37; p = 0.34) or progression-free-survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.26; p = 0.78). (b) The adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy comparison: 2811 out of 3416 (82%) women received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, of whom 1520 (54%) had high-recurrence-risk breast cancer [grade 3, node positive, oestrogen receptor negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive, or a high Oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) score of > 25]. In this high-risk population, there were no differences according to adjuvant chemotherapy use in overall survival or breast-cancer-specific survival after propensity matching. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of metastatic recurrence than no chemotherapy in the unmatched (adjusted hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.68; p = 0.002) and propensity-matched patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival of patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease. (2) Mixed-methods research to develop a decision support intervention: an iterative process was used to develop two decision support interventions (each comprising a brief decision aid, a booklet and an online tool) specifically for older women facing treatment choices (endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) using several evidence sources (expert opinion, literature and patient interviews). The online tool was based on models developed using registry data from 23,842 patients and validated on an external data set of 14,526 patients. Mortality rates at 2 and 5 years differed by < 1% between predicted and observed values. (3) Cluster-randomised clinical trial of decision support tools: 46 UK breast units were randomised (intervention, n = 21; usual care, n = 25), recruiting 1339 women (intervention, n = 670; usual care, n = 669). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months post baseline (difference –0.20, 95% confidence interval –2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.90). In women offered a choice of endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm than the usual care arm (94% vs. 74%; p = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with higher rates of endocrine therapy alone than of surgery in the intervention arm. Similarly, chemotherapy rates were lower in the intervention arm (endocrine therapy alone rate: intervention sites 21% vs. usual-care sites 15%, difference 5.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.1% to 10.0%; p = 0.02; adjuvant chemotherapy rate: intervention sites 10% vs. usual-care site 15%, difference 4.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.0% to 8.0%; p = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms. (4) Health economic analysis: a probabilistic economic model was developed using registry and cohort study data. For most health and fitness strata, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy had lower costs and returned more quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. However, for some women aged > 90 years, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was no longer cost-effective and generated fewer quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. The incremental benefit of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy reduced with age and comorbidities. (5) Variation in practice: analysis of rates of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone between the 56 breast units in the cohort study demonstrated significant variation in rates of endocrine therapy alone that persisted after adjustment for age, fitness and stage. Clinician preference was an important determinant of treatment choice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that, for older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, there is a cohort of women with a life expectancy of < 4 years for whom surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy may offer little benefit and simply have a negative impact on quality of life. The Age Gap decision tool may help make this shared decision. Similarly, although adjuvant chemotherapy offers little benefit and has a negative impact on quality of life for the majority of older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial. The negative impacts of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life, although significant, are transient. This implies that, for the majority of fitter women aged ≥ 70 years, standard care should be offered.

Limitations

As with any observational study, despite detailed propensity score matching, residual bias cannot be excluded. Follow-up was at median 52 months for the cohort analysis. Longer-term follow-up will be required to validate these findings owing to the slow time course of oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

Future work

The online algorithm is now available (URL: https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/; accessed May 2022). There are plans to validate the tool and incorprate quality-of-life and 10-year survival outcomes.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN46099296.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Adjuvant Treatment of Elderly Breast Cancer Patients: Offer the Best Chances of Cure

Background

Breast cancer remains the most common cancer in women and a leading cause of death. Elderly people have a higher incidence of breast cancer since it increases with age. Furthermore, the extended life expectancy and advances in imaging techniques have led to an increased number of cases. Guidelines concerning the management of this specific age group are rare, mainly due to underrepresentation of seniors in clinical trials. Moreover, increased frailty, comorbidities, and a poor performance status make it complex to determine the best therapeutic approach.

Summary

In this review, we attempt to summarize the current literature and aim to provide specific approaches and recommendations for prompt diagnosis, treatment, and management of breast cancer in the elderly.

Key Messages

The establishment of applicable protocols is imperative and efforts are being made in this direction. A careful geriatric assessment and adequate consultation should be the standard of care and patient's preferences should always be considered.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

The Impact of Dementia on Cancer Treatment Decision-Making, Cancer Treatment, and Mortality: A Mixed Studies Review

Dementia and cancer occur commonly in older adults. Yet, little is known about the effect of dementia on cancer treatment and outcomes in patients diagnosed with cancer, and no guidelines exist. We performed a mixed studies review to assess the current knowledge and gaps on the impact of dementia on cancer treatment decision-making, cancer treatment, and mortality. A search in PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO identified 55 studies on older adults with a dementia diagnosis before a cancer diagnosis and/or comorbid cancer and dementia published in English from January 2004 to February 2020. We described variability using range in quantitative estimates, ie, odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RR) when appropriate and performed narrative review of qualitative data. Patients with dementia were more likely to receive no curative treatment (including hospice or palliative care) (OR, HR, and RR range = 0.40-4.4, n = 8), while less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR and HR range = 0.11-0.68, n = 8), radiation (OR range = 0.24-0.56, n = 2), and surgery (OR range = 0.30-1.3, n = 4). Older adults with cancer and dementia had higher mortality than those with cancer alone (HR and OR range = 0.92-5.8, n = 33). Summarized findings from qualitative studies consistently revealed that clinicians, caregivers, and patients tended to prefer less aggressive care and gave higher priority to quality of life over life expectancy for those with dementia. Current practices in treatment-decision making for patients with both cancer and dementia are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for treatment guidelines for this growing patient population that considers patient and caregiver perspectives.

Care Disparities Across the Health Care Continuum for Older Adults: Lessons From Multidisciplinary Perspectives

Older adults comprise a considerable proportion of patients with cancer in the world. Across multiple cancer types, cancer treatment outcomes among older age groups are often inferior to those among younger adults. Cancer care for older individuals is complicated by the need to adapt treatment to baseline health, fitness, and frailty, all of which vary widely within this age group. Rates of social deprivation and socioeconomic disparities are also higher in older adults, with many living on reduced incomes, further compounding health inequality. It is important to recognize and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of cancer in this age group; however, simply addressing this problem by mandating standard treatment of all would lead to harms resulting from treatment toxicity and futility. However, there is little high-quality evidence on which to base these decisions, because older adults are poorly represented in clinical trials. Clinicians must recognize that simple extrapolation of outcomes from younger age cohorts may not be appropriate because of variance in disease stage and biology, variation in fitness and treatment tolerance, and reduced life expectancy. Older patients may also have different life goals and priorities, with a greater focus on quality of life and less on length of life at any cost. Health care professionals struggle with treatment of older adults with cancer, with high rates of variability in practice between and within countries. This suggests that better national and international recommendations that more fully address the needs of this special patient population are required and that primary research focused on the older age group is urgently required to inform these guidelines.

Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine biomarkers stratify patients into groups that are offered different treatments, but this may conflict with the principle of equal treatment. While some patient characteristics are seen as relevant for unequal treatment and others not, it is known that they all may influence treatment decisions. How biomarkers influence these decisions is not known, nor is their ethical relevance well discussed.

METHODS

We distributed an email survey designed to elicit treatment preferences from Norwegian doctors working with cancer patients. In a forced-choice conjoint analysis pairs of hypothetical patients were presented, and we calculated the average marginal component effect of seven individual patient characteristics, to estimate how each of them influence doctors' priority-setting decisions.

RESULTS

A positive biomarker status increased the probability of being allocated the new drug, while older age, severe comorbidity and reduced physical function reduced the probability. Importantly, sex, education level and smoking status had no significant influence on the decision.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function and comorbidity. Based on our results, we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be seen as an ethically acceptable factor for providing unequal treatment to patients with the same disease.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: cluster randomized trial of two decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer on quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choices

BACKGROUND

Rates of surgery and adjuvant therapy for breast cancer vary widely between breast units. This may contribute to differences in survival. This cluster RCT evaluated the impact of decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women with breast cancer, to ascertain whether DESIs influenced quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choice.

METHODS

A multicentre cluster RCT compared the use of two DESIs against usual care in treatment decision-making in older women (aged at least ≥70 years) with breast cancer. Each DESI comprised an online algorithm, booklet, and brief decision aid to inform choices between surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. The primary outcome was quality of life. Secondary outcomes included decision quality measures, survival, and treatment choice.

RESULTS

A total of 46 breast units were randomized (21 intervention, 25 usual care), recruiting 1339 women (670 intervention, 669 usual care). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months after the baseline assessment on intention-to-treat analysis (difference -0.20, 95 per cent confidence interval (C.I.) -2.69 to 2.29; P = 0.900). In women offered a choice of primary endocrine therapy versus surgery plus endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm (94 versus 74 per cent; P = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with a primary endocrine therapy rate among women with oestrogen receptor-positive disease of 21.0 per cent in the intervention versus 15.4 per cent in usual-care sites (difference 5.5 (95 per cent C.I. 1.1 to 10.0) per cent; P = 0.029). The chemotherapy rate was 10.3 per cent at intervention versus 14.8 per cent at usual-care sites (difference -4.5 (C.I. -8.0 to 0) per cent; P = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms.

CONCLUSION

The use of DESIs in older women increases knowledge of breast cancer treatment options, facilitates shared decision-making, and alters treatment selection. Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2015-004220-61 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/), ISRCTN46099296 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Understanding Treatment Strategies and Preferences in Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer From the Japanese Physician Perspective

PURPOSE

Sixteen percent (16%) of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) show no bone metastasis at diagnosis. However, 33% will become metastatic within 2 years. The goal of treatment in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC), therefore, is to delay symptomatic metastases without undue toxicity. With novel antiandrogen treatments of different strengths and limitations available, physician preferences for nmCRPC treatment in Japan should be understood.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Physicians chose between two hypothetical treatments in nmCRPC defined by six attributes: risk of fatigue, falls or fracture, cognitive impairment, hypertension, rashes as side effects of treatment, and extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs. Relative preference weights and relative importance were estimated by hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. Physicians were also asked to make treatment decisions based on four hypothetical patient profiles to understand the most important factors driving decision making.

RESULTS

A total of 151 physicians completed the survey. Extension of time until cancer-related pain occurs was the most important attribute (relative importance, 32.3%; CI, 31.3% to 33.3%). Based on summed preference weights across all attributes, preferences for hypothetical treatment profiles I, II, and III were compared. A hypothetical treatment profile with better safety though shorter extension time was preferred (I: mean [standard deviation] = 1.7 [1.6 to 2.1]) over treatment profiles with lower safety but longer extension time (II: -2.7 [-2.8 to -2.6] and III: -0.2 [-0.3 to -0.1]). Treatment characteristics were more important factors for physicians' decision making than patient characteristics in prescribing treatment.

CONCLUSION

Physicians preferred a treatment with better safety profile, and treatment characteristics were the most important factors for decision making. This might have implications in physicians' decision making for nmCRPC treatment in the future in Japan.

Observational cohort study to determine the degree and causes of variation in the rate of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in older women with operable breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In the UK there is variation in the treatment of older women with breast cancer, with up to 40% receiving primary endocrine therapy (PET), which is associated with inferior survival. Case mix and patient choice may explain some variation in practice but clinician preference may also be important.

METHODS

A multicentre prospective cohort study of women aged >70 with operable breast cancer. Patient characteristics (health status, age, tumour characteristics, treatment allocation and decision-making preference) were analysed to identify whether treatment variation persisted following case-mix adjustment. Expected case-mix adjusted surgery rates were derived by logistic regression using the variables age, co-morbidity, tumour stage and grade. Concordance between patients' preferred and actual decision-making style was assessed and associations between age, treatment and decision-making style calculated.

RESULTS

Women (median age 77, range 70-102) were recruited from 56 UK breast units between 2013 and 2018. Of 2854/3369 eligible women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer, 2354 were treated with surgery and 500 with PET. Unadjusted surgery rates varied between hospitals, with 23/56 units falling outside the 95% confidence intervals on funnel plots. Adjusting for case mix reduced, but did not eliminate, this variation between hospitals (10/56 units had practice outside the 95% confidence intervals). Patients treated with PET had more patient-centred decisions compared to surgical patients (42.2% vs 28.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates variation in treatment selection thresholds for older women with breast cancer. Health stratified guidelines on thresholds for PET would help reduce variation, although patient preference should still be respected.

Treatment choices for older women with primary operable breast cancer and cognitive impairment: Results from a prospective, multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The presence of dementia co-existing with a diagnosis of breast cancer may render management more challenging and have a substantial impact on oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the treatment and outcomes of older women with co-existing cognitive impairment and primary breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, multicentre UK cohort study of women aged 70 years or over with primary operable breast cancer. Patients with and without cognitive impairment were compared to assess differences in treatment and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 3416 women were recruited between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 478 (14%) had a diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment, subcategorised as mild, moderate and severely impaired. Up to 85% of women with normal cognition underwent surgery compared to 74%, 61% and 40% with mild, moderate, and severe impairment (p = 0.001). Among women at higher risk of recurrence, the uptake of chemotherapy was 25% for cognitively normal women compared to 20%, 22% and 12% for mild, moderate and severe impairment groups (p = 0.222). Radiotherapy use was similar in the subgroups. Although patients with cognitive impairment had shorter overall survival (HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.77-2.50, p < 0.001), there were no statistically significant differences in breast cancer specific or progression-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive impairment appears to play a significant part in deciding how to treat older women with breast cancer. Standard treatment may be over-treatment for some women with severe dementia and careful consideration must be given to a more tailored approach in these women.

Impact of older age on local treatment decisionss

Managing elderly breast cancer patients brings challenges both to physicians and patients themselves. There are certain controversial issues regarding local treatment of early breast cancer in this population. Since elderly patients are more likely to have comorbidities and functional limitations, they are more prone to undertreatment. Although surgical treatment in elderly patients were reported to be safe, severity and number of comorbidities are shown to be related with increased complications, hence may lead to higher mortality and lower life quality. Therefore, frailty is one of the concerns which prevents elderly patients to receive standard-of-care local treatment. Nevertheless, breast cancers developing in elderly are more likely to be low grade and luminal type. Until now, primary endocrine treatment without surgical resection, omitting whole breast irradiation after partial mastectomy and avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy, which are otherwise accepted as standard-of-care, were questionned in healthy, low-risk, elderly fit patients. Two main issues were suggested to be considered when assessing the impact of local treatment options in this patient group; the clinical significance of treatments' effects, and the patients' expectations. Due to their vulnerability, baseline geriatric assessment should be the initial step for management in elderly breast cancer patients. Even in those who are healthy and fit with long life-expectancy, de-escalation in management might be an option in low-risk patients after considering patients' individual expectations and limited clinical benefits of standard local treatment options.

The challenge of avoiding over- and under-treatment in older women with ductal cancer in situ: A scoping review of existing knowledge gaps and a meta-analysis of real-world practice patterns

Ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) is mainly a screen-detected disease and although the risk for breast cancer is age-dependent, most screening programs do not include women over the age of 75 years. Older women are usually excluded from clinical trials and treatment practices are largely based on observational studies or extrapolation of trial results from younger patients, leading to either over- or under-treatment of this population. We systematically reviewed available electronic databases for DCIS treatment patterns and outcomes in older patients 15 years. Inclusion criteria allowed for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control and cross-sectional studies, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews and position papers. Results showed that, although elderly are not necessarily frail, they are generally treated as such by physicians, aiming to de-escalate therapeutic interventions. After adjusting for frailty, age seems to be a significant factor for less surgery; however, older women with DCIS are more probable to receive surgery than their counterparts with early invasive cancer. DCIS biology and subtypes are independent risk factors for local recurrence or progression to invasive carcinoma, if DCIS is under-treated. The end-benefit of surgery, radio- and endocrine-therapy depend on additional parameters, such as life expectancy, co-morbidities and competing risks of death. Screen-detected DCIS in older women is a challenging clinical problem, mainly due to the lack of high-level data. Therapeutic strategies should be tailored to life expectancy and performance status, DCIS features and patient preference, aiming at combining optimal oncological outcomes with maintenance of quality of life.

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.