Offering a choice between two adjuvant chemotherapy regimens: a pilot study to develop a decision aid for women with breast cancer

Comparative Effectiveness of Palliative Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Real-World Evidence Analysis

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, real-world evidence may aid practitioners in optimizing the selection of therapy for patients with cancer. The study's aim was to determine real-word use, as well as compare effectiveness, of single-agent and combination chemotherapy as palliative treatment for female patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using administrative claims data from the Symphony Health's Integrated Oncology Dataverse, female patients with mBC treated with at least one chemotherapy-only treatment (COT) between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017 were selected. The frequency of use of single-agent versus combination chemotherapy overall and by line of therapy (LOT) was calculated whereas effectiveness was measured using time to next treatment (TNT).

RESULTS

A total of 12,381 patients with mBC were identified, and 3,777 (31%) received at least one line of COT. Of the 5,586 observed LOTs among the 3,777 patients, 66.5% were single-agent and 33.5% combination chemotherapy. Combination chemotherapy was most frequently used in first-line (45%) and least frequently in fifth-line (16%). Across all LOTs, median TNT was significantly longer for single-agent versus combination chemotherapy (5.3 months vs. 4.1 months, p < .0001). Comparison of median TNT by LOT showed significance in third-line and greater but not in first-line or second-line. Among single agents, the median TNT for patients receiving capecitabine was longest in comparison to all other single agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of combination COT use, particularly in first-line, warrants further research given published guideline recommendations. The observed TNT difference favoring single-agent treatment in later lines supports guideline recommendations. Variance between single-agent preference and observed TNT was noteworthy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although published data from evidence- and consensus-based guidelines recommend single-agent over combination chemotherapy, the extensive list of agents available for use and a gap in the comparative effectiveness research of these agents have resulted in significant variances in patterns of care. The aim of this study was to assess real-world treatment patterns and their effectiveness during palliative therapy of metastatic breast cancer. The objective was to understand when and how chemotherapy-only treatment is used in metastatic breast cancer and whether comparative effectiveness analysis supports the observed patterns of care.

A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer

Several complex treatment decisions may be offered to women with early stage breast cancer, about a range of treatments from different modalities including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve decision-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically identify, describe and appraise the literature on treatment decision aids for women with early breast cancer, synthesise the data and identify breast cancer decisions that lack a decision aid. A prospectively developed search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and abstract databases from major conferences. Data were extracted into a pre-piloted form. Quality and risk of bias were measured using Qualsyst criteria. Results were synthesised into narrative format. Thirty-three eligible articles were identified, evaluating 23 individual treatment decision aids, comprising 13 randomised controlled trial reports, seven non-randomised comparative studies, eight single-arm pre-post studies and five cross-sectional studies. The decisions addressed by these decision aids were: breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy (+/- reconstruction); use of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy; radiotherapy; and fertility preservation. Outcome measures were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis. Decisional conflict decreased, and knowledge and satisfaction increased, without any change in anxiety or depression, in most studies. No studies were identified that evaluated decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy, or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Decision aids are available and improved decision-related outcomes for many breast cancer treatment decisions including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy could not be found, and may be warranted.

Using decision aids to improve treatment choices for women with breast cancer

SUMMARY Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and decision-making regarding treatment options can be complex; however, patients often desire to be involved in health-related decisions. There has been a growing body of research into decision-support tools such as decision aids (DAs). Generally, DAs outperform standard care over a range of decision-making outcomes and there are some that have been developed for use with breast cancer patients across the treatment trajectory, which have been evaluated for use in practice. There is scope for developing additional DAs for cancer patients, however, there are some limitations and barriers that need to be overcome as part of the implementation process. Consideration for the mechanisms for maintaining relevancy of materials and ease of accessibility is also needed.

Breast cancer patients' treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: the influence of numeracy

The decision aid called ''Adjuvant Online'' (Adjuvant! for short) helps breast cancer patients make treatment decisions by providing numerical estimates of treatment efficacy (e.g., 10-y relapse or survival). Studies exploring how patients' numeracy interacts with the estimates provided by Adjuvant! are lacking. Pooling across 2 studies totaling 105 women with estrogen receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer, the authors explored patients' treatment expectations, perceived benefit from treatments, and confidence of personal benefit from treatments. Patients who were more numerate were more likely to provide estimates of cancer-free survival that matched the estimates provided by Adjuvant! for each treatment option compared with patients with lower numeracy (odds ratios of 1.6 to 2.4). As estimates of treatment efficacy provided by Adjuvant! increased, so did patients' estimates of cancer-free survival (0.37 > r(s) > 0.48) and their perceptions of treatment benefit from hormonal therapy (r(s) = 0.28) and combined therapy (r(s) = 0.27). These relationships were significantly more pronounced for those with higher numeracy, especially for perceived benefit of combined therapy. Results suggest that numeracy influences a patient's ability to interpret numerical estimates of treatment efficacy from decision aids such as Adjuvant!.

Assessment of preferences for treatment: validation of a measure

Systematic measurement of treatment preferences is needed to obtain well-informed preferences. Guided by a conceptualization of treatment preferences, a measure was developed to assess treatment acceptability and preference. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the treatment acceptability and preferences (TAP) measure. The TAP measure contains a description of each treatment under evaluation, items to rate its acceptability, and questions about participants' preferred treatment option. The items measuring treatment acceptability were internally consistent (alpha > .80) and demonstrated validity, evidenced by a one-factor structure and differences in the scores between participants with preferences for particular interventions. The TAP measure has the potential for the assessment of acceptability and preferences for various behavioral interventions.

Utility of a Web-Based Breast Cancer Predictive Algorithm for Adjuvant Chemotherapeutic Decision Making in a Multidisciplinary Oncology Center

PURPOSE

Adjuvant drug therapy can extend survival for breast cancer patients, but the balance between costs and benefits may be difficult to estimate. Software programs have been developed for this purpose and recently have become available online. Here, we describe our experience using a web-based program to support adjuvant decision making at a multidisciplinary breast cancer Tumor Board in a university-affiliated oncology center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred two adjuvant breast cancer cases were discussed by the Tumor Board over a four-month period, with a provisional treatment plan being formulated after each discussion. Program data predicting 10-year risks and benefits were shared with board members after each provisional plan and any change in recommendation was recorded. A user survey was conducted to assess the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the program.

RESULTS

Treatment decisions were changed in 12.7 percent of cases (13/102) after consideration of data from the program. Most of these (76.9 percent) were node-negative ER-positive cases, with the most common reason for change being a lower-than-expected added survival benefit from less intensive chemotherapy regimens (ACx4 or CMF; 81.8 percent). In certain recurrent scenarios, the program was perceived to have limitations that led to retention of the original management plan despite data that might otherwise have favored different treatment. On completion of the study period, clinicians' attitudes to the program ranged from enthusiasm to caution.

CONCLUSION

Although not replacing clinical judgement, these findings support the value of this web-based program as a decision making adjunct that can help clinicians to separate risk and benefit, compare the added value of different therapeutic interventions in a given clinical context, and present more balanced information about treatment options to patients.

Perceptions of breast cancer treatment among African-American women and men: implications for interventions

BACKGROUND

While breast cancer mortality has declined in recent years, the mortality gap between African-American and white women continues to grow. Current strategies to reduce this disparity focus on logistical and information needs, but contextual factors, such as concerns about racism and treatment side effects, may also represent significant barriers to improved outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize perceptions of breast cancer treatment among African-American women and men.

DESIGN

A qualitative study of African-American adults using focus group interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred eighty women and 165 men who live in one of 15 contiguous neighborhoods on Chicago's South Side.

APPROACH

Transcripts were systematically analyzed using qualitative techniques to identify emergent themes related to breast cancer treatment.

RESULTS

The concerns expressed most frequently were mistrust of the medical establishment and federal government, the effect of racism and lack of health insurance on quality of care, the impact of treatment on intimate relationships, and the negative effects of surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to providing logistical and information support, strategies to reduce the breast cancer mortality gap should also address contextual factors important to quality of care. Specific interventions are discussed, including strategies to enhance trust, reduce race-related treatment differences, minimize the impact of treatment on intimate relationships, and reduce negative perceptions of breast cancer surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

The impact of thyroid cancer and post-surgical radioactive iodine treatment on the lives of thyroid cancer survivors: a qualitative study

Background

Adjuvant treatment with radioactive iodine (RAI) is often considered in the treatment of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma (WDTC). We explored the recollections of thyroid cancer survivors on the diagnosis of WDTC, adjuvant radioactive iodine (RAI) treatment, and decision-making related to RAI treatment. Participants provided recommendations for healthcare providers on counseling future patients on adjuvant RAI treatment.

Methods

We conducted three focus group sessions, including WDTC survivors recruited from two Canadian academic hospitals. Participants had a prior history of WDTC that was completely resected at primary surgery and had been offered adjuvant RAI treatment. Open-ended questions were used to generate discussion in the groups. Saturation of major themes was achieved among the groups.

Findings

There were 16 participants in the study, twelve of whom were women (75%). All but one participant had received RAI treatment (94%). Participants reported that a thyroid cancer diagnosis was life-changing, resulting in feelings of fear and uncertainty. Some participants felt dismissed as not having a serious disease. Some participants reported receiving conflicting messages from healthcare providers on the appropriateness of adjuvant RAI treatment or insufficient information. If RAI-related side effects occurred, their presence was not legitimized by some healthcare providers.

Conclusions

The diagnosis and treatment of thyroid cancer significantly impacts the lives of survivors. Fear and uncertainty related to a cancer diagnosis, feelings of the diagnosis being dismissed as not serious, conflicting messages about adjuvant RAI treatment, and treatment-related side effects, have been raised as important concerns by thyroid cancer survivors.

The use of patient and provider perspectives to develop a patient-oriented website for women diagnosed with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Develop a patient education program that provides accurate and easy-to-understand information for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

METHODS

To inform development of the patient education program, we conducted a longitudinal series of semi-structured interviews with 30 breast cancer patients as well as one-time interviews with 22 healthcare providers. Responses guided the study team's decisions regarding both form and content.

RESULTS

We created a website (www.cancercarelinks.org) that reflects the needs expressed by patients and providers. The website is structured to answer six key questions that emerged in the interviews: What does my diagnosis mean? What will my treatment be like? Who will be involved with my treatment? What has treatment been like for others? How can I share my story with my family and friends? Where can I find more information and support? In a beta-test, 12 breast cancer patients rated the website as very clear, informative, trustworthy, useful, easy-to-understand, and easy to use.

CONCLUSION

The emotional weight of a breast cancer diagnosis, coupled with the amount of disparate information available, can be overwhelming for patients. Providing clear, accurate, and tailored information is a way to meet information needs and allay fears that patients will receive "bad" information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Combining patient and provider input with the perspectives of a multidisciplinary team resulted in a promising patient education program for women diagnosed with breast cancer. The logic of this approach has implications for developing patient education programs for a variety of clinical contexts.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for patients considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Treatment decisions in advanced breast cancer are complex, with enhanced quality of life and survival among important treatment goals. Patients with metastatic breast cancer face the decision of whether or not to have chemotherapy, and many wish to be involved in this decision. We report the development and evaluation of a decision aid (DA) designed to assist patients facing this treatment decision.

DESIGN AND SAMPLE

Women with metastatic breast cancer (n = 17)and medical oncologists in Australia and Canada (n = 7) were invited to evaluate the DA.

INTERVENTION

A DA was developed for patients with hormone resistant metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. The DA presented options of supportive care, with or without chemotherapy. Potential benefits and side effects of different chemotherapy regimens, and evidence-based prognostic estimates were described,and a values clarification exercise included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient questionnaires evaluating information and decision involvement preferences, attitudes toward the DA and oncologist feedback regarding attitudes toward the DA.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients participated; fifteen desired as much information about their illness as possible; sixteen wished to be actively involved in the decision-making process. The majority rated the DA as highly acceptable, clear and informative, and would recommend it to others facing this treatment decision.

CONCLUSION

This is the first DA for patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. A randomized trial is underway to evaluate its role in clinical decision-making.

Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study

Background

Field-testing is a quality assurance criterion in the development of patient decision-support technologies (PDSTs), as identified in the consensus statement of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. We incorporated field-testing into the development of a Web-based, prostate-specific antigen PDST called Prosdex, which was commissioned as part of the UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to develop a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, based on the field-testing of Prosdex. Our objectives were (1) to explore the reactions of men to evolving prototypes of Prosdex, (2) to assess the effect of these responses on the development process, and (3) to develop a model for field-testing PDSTs based on the responses and their effect on the development process.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted with the men after they had viewed evolving prototypes of Prosdex in their homes. The men were grouped according to the prototype viewed. Men between 40 and 75 years of age were recruited from two family practices in different parts of Wales, United Kingdom. In the interviews, the men were asked for their views on Prosdex, both as a whole and in relation to specific sections such as the introduction and video clips. Comments and technical issues that arose during the viewings were noted and fed back to the developers in order to produce subsequent prototypes.

Results

A total of 27 men were interviewed, in five groups, according to the five prototypes of Prosdex that were developed. The two main themes from the interviews were the responses to the information provided in Prosdex and the responses to specific features of Prosdex. Within these themes, two of the most frequently encountered categories were detail of the information provided and balance between contrasting viewpoints. Criticisms were encountered, particularly with respect to navigation of the site. In addition, we found that participants made little use of the decision-making scale. The introduction of an interactive contents page to prototype 2 was the main change made to Prosdex as a result of the field-testing. Based on our findings, a model for the field-testing of PDSTs was developed, involving an exploratory field-testing stage between the planning stage and the development of the first prototype, and followed by the prototype field-testing stage, leading to the final PDST.

Conclusions

In the field-testing of Prosdex, a Web-based prostate-specific antigen PDST, the responses of interviewed men were generally favorable. As a consequence of the responses, an interactive contents page was added to the site. We developed a model for the future field-testing of PDSTs, involving two stages: exploratory field-testing and prototype field-testing.

A systematic review of information in decision aids

OBJECTIVE

We completed a systematic review of information reported as included in decision aids (DAs) for adult patients, to determine if it is complete, balanced and accurate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

DAs were identified using the Cochrane Database of DAs and searches of four electronic databases using the terms: 'decision aid'; shared decision making' and 'patients'; 'multimedia or leaflets or pamphlets or videos and patients and decision making'. Additionally, publications reporting DA development and actual DAs that were reported as publicly available on the Internet were consulted. Publications were included up to May 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the following variables: external groups consulted in development of the DA, type of study used, categories of information, inclusion of probabilities, use of citation lists and inclusion of patient experiences.

MAIN RESULTS

68 treatment DAs and 30 screening DAs were identified. 17% of treatment DAs and 47% of screening DAs did not report any external consultation and, of those that did, DA producers tended to rely more heavily on medical experts than on patients' guidance. Content evaluations showed that (i) treatment DAs frequently omit describing the procedure(s) involved in treatment options and (ii) screening DAs frequently focus on false positives but not false negatives. About 1/2 treatment DAs reported probabilities with a greater emphasis on potential benefits than harms. Similarly, screening DAs were more likely to provide false-positive than false-negative rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The review led us to be concerned about completeness, balance and accuracy of information included in DAs.

How important is the opinion of significant others to cancer patients’ adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making?

GOALS

Decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy are difficult, since value tradeoffs are involved. Little is known about the importance of the significant others in patients' decision-making regarding adjuvant treatment. We surveyed patients with breast and colorectal cancer about the importance they assigned to the opinions of their significant others and assessed correlates of these importance scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty-three patients rated on a five-point scale how much they cared about the opinion of six significant others.

MAIN RESULTS

Most important was the opinion of their treating specialist, followed by that of their partner, children, other family, friends, and colleagues. Women assigned higher scores to the opinion of their children, younger patients to that of their specialist, and patients who were about to undergo chemotherapy to that of their family. Patients with breast cancer and patients without paid employment assigned slightly more importance to the opinion of their partner.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on the influence of significant others may help clinicians when involving patients in treatment decision-making and discussing patients' treatment preferences.

Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer

This study sought to examine the relationships between decisional role (preferred and assumed) at time of surgical treatment (baseline), congruence between assumed role at baseline and preferred role 3 years later (follow-up), and quality of life at follow-up. Two hundred and five women diagnosed with breast cancer completed the decisional role preference scale at baseline and follow-up, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 at follow-up. A statistically significant number of women had decisional role regret, with most of these women preferring greater involvement in treatment planning than was afforded them. Women who indicated at baseline that they were actively involved in choosing their surgical treatment had significantly higher overall quality of life at follow-up than women who indicated passive involvement. These actively involved women had significantly higher physical and social functioning and significantly less fatigue than women who assumed a passive role. Quality of life was significantly related to reports of experienced involvement in treatment decision making, but not to reports of preferred involvement, or congruence between preferred and experienced involvement.

Renal replacement therapy choices for pre-dialysis renal patients

With the numbers of patients developing end-stage renal failure predicted to increase over the coming years, more patients than ever will be expected to choose their future form of renal replacement treatment. This study explored the decision-making processes of pre-dialysis patients to elucidate how these choices were made. Nine pre-dialysis patients were interviewed, transcripts of which were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Four main themes relating to the decision-making process emerged: maintaining one's integrity, forced adaptation, utilizing information, and support and experiencing illness. While making a decision was an individualized process, contextualized within participants' illness experiences, these core themes emerged for the whole group, irrespective of the chosen treatment modality. For renal services, there is a need to tailor information provided to pre-dialysis patients and to become cognizant of the contexts in which they live and operate.

Review of Determinants of Patients’ Preferences for Adjuvant Therapy in Cancer

Purpose

Many studies have determined cancer patients’ preferences for adjuvant therapy, for example, by asking patients the extent of benefit they would need in order to accept the therapy. However, little is known about the determinants that influence these preferences. Our research goal was to explore which determinants underlie patients’ preferences by means of a literature review.

Methods

PubMed searches were conducted to identify studies in which cancer patients’ preferences for adjuvant therapy had been elicited by means of a treatment preference instrument. Twenty-three papers were evaluated with regard to reported relationships between preferences and potential determinants. A total of 40 determinants were recorded and classified into one of seven categories: (1) treatment-related determinants, (2) sociodemographic characteristics and current quality of life, (3) clinical characteristics, (4) measurement instrument-related determinants, (5) time-related determinants, (6) cognitive/affective determinants, and (7) specialist-related determinants.

Results

The benefit and toxicity of treatment, experience of the treatment, and having dependents (eg, children) living at home were important determinants of patients’ preferences. Furthermore, qualitative data suggested that cognitive/affective and specialist-related determinants might have a large impact on patients’ treatment preferences.

Conclusion

Our results show that patients’ preferences cannot fully be explained on the basis of treatment-related determinants and patient and clinical characteristics. More research is needed in the area of cognitive/affective and specialist-related determinants because of the lack of quantitative results. Furthermore, we recommend carrying out larger studies in which the (internal) relationships between determinants and preferences are assessed in the context of a cognitive cost-benefit model.

Helping patients make informed choices: a randomized trial of a decision aid for adjuvant chemotherapy in lymph node-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, patients have indicated a desire for more information about their disease and to be involved in making decisions about their care. We developed an aid called the "Decision Board" to help clinicians inform patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer of the risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. We determined whether adding the Decision Board to the medical consultation improved patient knowledge and satisfaction compared with the medical consultation alone.

METHODS

Between October 1995 and March 2000, 176 women with lymph node-negative breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive the Decision Board plus the medical consultation (83 patients) or the medical consultation alone (93 patients). One week after the consultation, patients completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge about breast cancer and chemotherapy. Satisfaction with decision making was assessed 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization, and differences between groups were analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of variance. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Patients in the Decision Board arm were better informed about breast cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy than patients in the control arm (mean knowledge score = 80.2 [on a scale of 0-100], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.1 to 83.3, and 71.7, 95% CI = 69.0 to 74.4, respectively; P<.001). Over the entire study period, satisfaction with decision making was higher for patients in the Decision Board arm than for patients in the control arm (P =.032). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who chose adjuvant chemotherapy (77% and 70% for patients in the Decision Board arm and those in the control arm, respectively; P =.303).

CONCLUSION

When making decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with early breast cancer who had been exposed to the Decision Board had better knowledge of the disease and treatment options and greater satisfaction with their decision making than those who received the standard consultation.

Treatment decision-making and its relation to the sense of coherence and the meaning of the disease in a group of patients with colorectal cancer

The aims of the present study were to describe the preferred and the actual participating roles in treatment decision-making in relation to patients with newly diagnosed, colorectal cancer and to relate this result to the sociodemographic data, the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC) and the patients' meaning of the disease. Eighty-six patients were studied. The following instruments were used: the Control Preferences Scale (CPS); the eight Lipowski categories of the meaning of the disease (LCMD); and the SOC. The results showed that 62% of the patients preferred a collaborative role and 28% a passive role in treatment decision-making. Agreement between the preferred and the actual participating roles was achieved by 44% of the patients. Seventy-one per cent of the patients showed an optimistic understanding of their disease. The mean SOC score was 150. There was no statistically significant difference between the CPS groups as regarded the sociodemographic data, the SOC and the LCMD.

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic data, the perceived meaning of the disease as well as the patients' sense of coherence were not related to the decision-making preferences in the investigated group of patients. Therefore, further investigations are needed to get an understanding of influencing factors of the decision-making preferences.

Lessons learned from the Decision Board: a unique and evolving decision aid

One session of the conference was devoted to the presentation of different types of decision aids. This paper reports the experience and lessons learned through the development and use of the Decision Board. This is a uniquely interactive decision aid administered by the clinician during the medical consultation. The instrument has been developed in a number of clinical contexts, primarily regarding treatment options for cancer patients. Studies have shown the instrument to improve patient understanding and facilitate the shared decision-making process. Randomized trials are ongoing, evaluating the addition of the Decision Board to the traditional medical consultation. The instrument continues to evolve to meet patients' need for information and flexibility in presentation. Computer-based versions of the Decision Board are currently being developed.