Time for a low-risk DCIS trial: harnessing public and patient involvement

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

Patient involvement in clinical cancer research has gained much ground in the past few years and studies demonstrated positive outcomes of such involvement. Yet, they also indicated a lack of evidence around best methods and practices to achieve successful patient involvement. The aim of this literature review was to provide a synthesis of elements contributing to successful and meaningful ways of involving patients in oncology trials across different stages of research. This synthesis can offer practical support to researchers in their patient involvement journey. A PubMed literature search for original articles published between 2012 and early 2023 was carried out. In total, 3132 articles were identified, among which 152 were fully assessed for eligibility. Thirty-three articles met the predefined inclusion criteria and were subjected to a quality checklist. Patient involvement occurred most often in the development stage of cancer trials (85%) and was continuous and integrated throughout the entire lifecycle of research (67%). In total, 58 elements of successful patient involvement were identified, such as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of patient partners, input of multiple patients to ensure diversity, and regular touchpoints in the project. All these elements can be applied in future studies from the planning stage to the dissemination of study results. This review provides a set of practical recommendations that can be used by the cancer research community when planning to involve or already involving patients in their clinical trial activities.

Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study

BACKGROUND

The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented.

METHODS

Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews.

RESULTS

Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.

Active surveillance versus treatment in low-risk DCIS: Women's preferences in the LORD-trial

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but most DCIS lesions remain indolent. However, guidelines recommend surgery, often supplemented by radiotherapy. This implies overtreatment of indolent DCIS. The non-randomised patient preference LORD-trial tests whether active surveillance (AS) for low-risk DCIS is safe, by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between AS and conventional treatment (CT). Here, we aim to describe how participants are distributed among both trial arms, identify their motives for their preference, and assess factors associated with their choice.

METHODS

Data were extracted from baseline questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the distribution and characteristics of participants; thematic analyses to extract self-reported reasons for the choice of trial arm, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between patient characteristics and chosen trial arm.

RESULTS

Of 377 women included, 76% chose AS and 24% CT. Most frequently cited reasons for AS were "treatment is not (yet) necessary" (59%) and trust in the AS-plan (39%). Reasons for CT were cancer worry (51%) and perceived certainty (29%). Women opting for AS more often had lower educational levels (OR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93) and more often reported experiencing shared decision making (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.37-5.37) than women choosing CT.

CONCLUSION

The LORD-trial is the first to offer women with low-risk DCIS a choice between CT and AS. Most women opted for AS and reported high levels of trust in the safety of AS. Their preferences highlight the necessity to establish the safety of AS for low-risk DCIS.

Women's views about current and future management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS): A mixed-methods study

Management of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, with clinical trials currently assessing the safety of active monitoring amidst concern about overtreatment. Little is known about general community views regarding DCIS and its management. We aimed to explore women's understanding and views about low-risk DCIS and current and potential future management options. This mixed-method study involved qualitative focus groups and brief quantitative questionnaires. Participants were screening-aged (50-74 years) women, with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and no personal history of breast cancer/DCIS, recruited from across metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sessions incorporated an informative presentation interspersed with group discussions which were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Fifty-six women took part in six age-stratified focus groups. Prior awareness of DCIS was limited, however women developed reasonable understanding of DCIS and the relevant issues. Overall, women expressed substantial support for active monitoring being offered as a management approach for low-risk DCIS, and many were interested in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial. Although some women expressed concern that current management may sometimes represent overtreatment, there were mixed views about personally accepting monitoring. Women noted a number of important questions and considerations that would factor into their decision making. Our findings about women's perceptions of active monitoring for DCIS are timely while results of ongoing clinical trials of monitoring are awaited, and may inform clinicians and investigators designing future, similar trials. Exploration of offering well-informed patients the choice of non-surgical management of low-risk DCIS, even outside a clinical trial setting, may be warranted.

Multi-protein spatial signatures in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of breast

BACKGROUND

There is limited knowledge about DCIS cellular composition and relationship with breast cancer events (BCE).

METHODS

Immunofluorescence multiplexing (MxIF) was used to image and quantify 32 cellular biomarkers in FFPE DCIS tissue microarrays. Over 75,000 DCIS cells from 51 patients (median 9 years follow-up for non-BCE cases) were analysed for profiles predictive of BCE. K-means clustering was used to evaluate cellular co-expression of epithelial markers with ER and HER2.

RESULTS

Only ER, PR and HER2 significantly correlated with BCE. Cluster analysis identified 6 distinct cell groups with different levels of ER, Her2, cMET and SLC7A5. Clusters 1 and 3 were not significant. Clusters 2 and 4 (high ER/low HER2 and SLC7A5/mixed cMET) significantly correlated with low BCE risk (P = 0.001 and P = 0.034), while cluster 6 (high HER2/low ER, cMET and SLC7A5) correlated with increased risk (P = 0.018). Cluster 5 (similar to cluster 6, except high SLC7A5) trended towards significance (P = 0.072). A continuous expression score (Escore) based on these 4 clusters predicted likelihood of BCE (AUC = 0.79, log-rank test P = 5E-05; LOOCV AUC = 0.74, log-rank test P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Multiplexed spatial analysis of limited tissue is a novel method for biomarker analysis and predicting BCEs. Further validation of Escore is needed in a larger cohort.

Prognostic Score-Based Stratification Analysis Reveals Universal Benefits of Radiotherapy on Lowering the Risk of Ipsilateral Breast Event for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Patients with Different Risk Levels

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyze the effects of radiotherapy (RT) on the incidence rate of ipsilateral breast event (IBE) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients with lumpectomy after being stratified by prognostic score.

METHODS

We identified DCIS patients who received lumpectomy, from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1988 to 2015. Cumulative incidence functions for competing risk were used to evaluate the effects of RT on IBE risk over time. Three multivariate regression models (weighted, non-weighted, and Fine-Gray) were applied to compare the IBE risk between the RT and non-RT groups after stratifying patients by prognostic score.

RESULTS

Overall, 72,623 DCIS patients were identified from the SEER database and 49,206 (66.8%) patients received RT. During the follow-up period (ranging from 7 to 347 months), the cumulative probability of invasive and in situ IBE was significantly lower in the RT group than in the non-RT group (p < 0.001). After being stratified by prognostic score, the weighted IBE incidence rate increased as the risk level increased (p < 0.050). In multivariate regression models, RT lowered the IBE incidence rate by at least 30% in low-, moderate-, and high-risk DCIS (p < 0.010). In particular, the in situ and invasive IBE incidence rate decreased by over 50% in low-risk DCIS with RT (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RT is associated with a lowered IBE incidence rate in DCIS patients, regardless of the assigned risk levels for patients. The significant reduction in the IBE incidence rate in low-risk DCIS patients also indicates the potential benefits for recommending RT to such a patient population in clinical practice.

How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) impacts women's concern and management preferences: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There are increasing rates of mastectomy and bi-lateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). To help women avoid decisions that lead to unnecessary aggressive treatments, there have been recent calls to remove the cancer terminology from descriptions of DCIS. We investigated how different proposed terminologies for DCIS affect women's perceived concern and management preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a community sample of 26 Australian women varying by education and cancer screening experience. Women responded to a hypothetical scenario using terminology with and without the cancer term to describe DCIS.

RESULTS

Among a sample of women with no experience of a DCIS diagnosis, a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS elicited high concern regardless of the terminology used to describe it. Women generally exhibited stronger negative reactions when a cancer term was used to describe DCIS compared to a non-cancer term, and most preferred the diagnosis be given as a description of abnormal cells. Overall women expressed interest in watchful waiting for DCIS but displayed preferences for very frequent monitoring with this management approach.

CONCLUSION

Communicating a diagnosis of DCIS using terminology that does not include the cancer term was preferred by many women and may enable discussions about more conservative management options. However, women's preference for frequent monitoring during watchful waiting suggests women need more education and reassurance about this management approach.

Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial

Overdiagnosis, and thus overtreatment, are inevitable consequences of most screening programmes; identification of ways of minimising the impact of overdiagnosis demands new prospective research, in particular the need to separate clinically relevant lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely left alone or monitored and only need treated if they change characteristics. Breast cancer screening has led to a large increase in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnoses. This is a widely heterogeneous disease and most DCIS detected through screening is of high cytonuclear grade and therefore likely to be important clinically. However, the historic practice of surgical treatment for all DCIS is unlikely to be optimal for lower risk patients. A clearer understanding of how to manage DCIS is required. This article describes the background and development of 'The low risk' DCIS trial (LORIS), a phase III trial of surgery versus active monitoring. LORIS will determine if it is appropriate to manage women with screen detected or asymptomatic, low grade and intermediate grade DCIS with low grade features, by active monitoring rather than by surgical treatment.

Opportunities for molecular epidemiological research on ductal carcinoma in-situ and breast carcinogenesis: interdisciplinary approaches

Most invasive breast cancers arise from ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS), a non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer. Given that the natural history of individual DCIS lesions is unpredictable, many women with DCIS receive extensive treatments, which may include surgery, radiation and endocrine therapy, even though many of these lesions may have limited potential to progress to invasion and metastasize. In contrast to valid concerns about overtreatment, the fact that invasive breast cancers outnumber DCIS lesions by more than three-to-one, suggests that many cancer precursors (particularly DCIS, but LCIS also) progress to invasion prior to detection. Thus, DCIS poses a dual problem of overdiagnosis among some women and failure of early detection among others. These concerns are heightened by the multifold increase in rates of DCIS in conjunction with widespread use of mammographic screening and access to outpatient radiologically-guided biopsies. Accordingly, methods are needed to both specifically detect and identify DCIS lesions with potential to progress to invasive cancer and to discover techniques to triage and conservatively manage indolent cases of DCIS.

Low grade Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS): how best to describe it?

BACKGROUND

In the absence of definitive data about the natural history of DCIS the appropriateness of describing DCIS as cancer is controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a survey amongst British Breast Group (BBG) members, to determine which descriptions of DCIS were deemed most accurate and appropriate.

RESULTS

54/73 (74%) attendees completed the survey: A majority (34/54; 63%) said they would be comfortable using the description that explained DCIS as abnormal cells in the milk ducts that had not spread into other breast tissue and which did not need urgent treatment as if it was breast cancer and this description was overall the most preferred (24/54; 44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Little consensus exists regarding how best to explain low grade DCIS to patients.

The impact of mammography screening on breast cancer incidence

Evaluation of: Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 1998–2005 (2012). Mammography screening must advance the time of diagnosis of breast cancer to be able to reduce the rate of death from breast cancer. This article examined the temporal effects of mammography on the stage-specific incidence of breast cancer in the USA from 1976 through to 2008. Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer, only a marginal reduction was observed in the number of cases presenting with late-stage breast cancer. These results provide convincing evidence that mammography screening entails a substantial risk of detecting tumors that would not have become symptomatic during a woman’s lifetime if no screening had taken place. To improve the effectiveness of screening mammography, more knowledge is needed on the natural history of breast cancer, especially the risk of progression from in situ to invasive breast cancer.