The adherence paradox: guideline deviations contribute to the increased 5-year survival of breast cancer patients

Role of patient characteristics in adherence to first-line treatment guidelines in breast, lung and prostate cancer: insights from the Nordic healthcare system

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates the influence of socioeconomic status, health literacy, and numeracy on treatment decisions and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with breast, lung, and prostate cancer within a Nordic healthcare setting.

DESIGN

A follow-up to a cross-sectional, mixed-methods, single-centre study.

SETTING

A Nordic, tertiary cancer clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 244 participants with breast, lung and prostate cancer were initially identified, of which 138 first-line treatment participants were eligible for this study. First-line treatment participants (n=138) surpassed the expected cases (n=108).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable as this was an observational study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The study's primary endpoint was the rate of guideline adherence. The secondary endpoint involved assessing treatment toxicity in the form of adverse events.

RESULTS

Guideline-adherent treatment was observed in 114 (82.6%) cases. First-line treatment selection appeared uninfluenced by participants' education, occupation, income or self-reported health literacy. A minority (3.6%) experienced difficulties following treatment instructions, primarily with oral cancer medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicated lesser cancer health disparities regarding guideline adherence and treatment toxicity within the Nordic healthcare framework. A causal connection may not be established; however, the findings contribute to discourse on equitable cancer health provision.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODOLOGY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Pragmatic Benchmarking Study of an Evidence-Based Personalised Approach in 1938 Adolescents with High-Risk Idiopathic Scoliosis

Combining evidence-based medicine and shared decision making, current guidelines support an evidence-based personalised approach (EBPA) for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents (AIS). EBPA is considered important for adolescents' compliance, which is particularly difficult in AIS. Benchmarking to existing Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) as paradigms of single treatments, we aimed to check the effectiveness and burden of care of an EBPA in high-risk AIS. This study's design features a retrospective observation of a prospective database including 25,361 spinal deformity patients < 18 years of age. Participants consisted of 1938 AIS, 11-45° Cobb, Risser stage 0-2, who were studied until the end of growth. EBPA included therapies classified for burdensomeness according to current guidelines. Using the same inclusion criteria of the RCTs on exercises, plastic, and elastic bracing, out of the 1938 included, we benchmarked 590, 687, and 884 participants, respectively. We checked clinically significant results and burden of care, calculating Relative Risk of success (RR) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for efficacy (EA) and intent-to-treat analyses. At the end of growth, 19% of EBPA participants progressed, while 33% improved. EBPA showed 2.0 (1.7-2.5) and 2.9 (1.7-4.9) RR of success versus Weinstein and Coillard's studies control groups, respectively. Benchmarked to plastic or elastic bracing, EBPA had 1.4 (1.2-1.5) and 1.7 (1.2-2.5) RR of success, respectively. The EBPA treatment burden was greater than RCTs in 48% of patients, and reduced for 24% and 42% versus plastic and elastic bracing, respectively. EBPA showed to be from 40% to 70% more effective than benchmarked individual treatments, with low NNT. The burden of treatment was frequently reduced, but it had to be increased even more frequently.

Individualized Care Is Superior to Standardized Care for the Majority of Critically Ill Patients

Tools for standardizing patient care can take many forms, including but not limited to, bundles, quality improvement and performance measures, guidelines, and protocols. Each is intended to improve compliance with interventions believed to be supported by the best available evidence, ensuring consistency of management across all patients with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes. However, in the ICU, patients typically present with complex acute illnesses and accompanying comorbidities, requiring careful tailoring of interventions and treatments for each individual patient. The rapidly changing nature of the underlying conditions also demands continuous reassessment and modification of each patient’s management on a frequent and sometimes moment-by-moment basis. Disrupting this individualized treatment approach by imposing prescriptive, overly restrictive, “one-size-fits-all” standardized treatments in the critical care setting may prevent the clinician from meeting individual patients’ needs and decrease care quality (1 ). This problem is compounded if the standardization tools adopted are not only inflexible but also have a poorly supported or entirely absent scientific basis. Importantly, identifiable patient subcategories often exist that fit poorly into the populations for which many interventions were developed and tested. Of equal concern, critical care trainees may become dependent on a standardized/cookbook approach to care and fail to recognize and learn how treatments must be tailored for the unique needs of each critically ill patient. Rather than rigidly standardizing critical care, approaches that recognize this complexity and are both scientifically sound and responsive to patient differences should be readily available to critical care clinicians without replacing sensible clinical judgment. Such strategies that acknowledge the limitations of available evidence hold more hope of improving, rather than inadvertently worsening, the outcome.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42018092884 ).

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Registration:

PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Electronic supplementary material

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

Evidence based medicine - decades later

After more than two decades of enthusiasm surrounding the concept of evidence based medicine, wide variation in its implementation is still present. Some have suggested that evidence based medicine may be a failed model. We propose that the highly formulaic approach of evidence based medicine has evolved toward a more personalized, integrated and contextualized method, consistent with the principle of shared decision making advanced by the Institute of Medicine. Evidence based medicine remains an essential prerequisite but ultimately, only the practitioner's clinical expertise, knowledge and practical wisdom will provide the ability to apply general rules of evidence to particular clinical situations.

Explaining variation in quality of breast cancer care and its impact: a nationwide population-based study from Slovenia

PURPOSE

To assess and explain variation in quality of care in breast cancer patients and estimate its impact on disease outcome.

METHODS

The Slovenian National Cancer Registry database and clinical records of 1053 women with unilateral primarily non-metastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2013 were reviewed in this retrospective analysis. Quality care was defined as care fully compliant with quality indicators (QI) defined by European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA). Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of receiving quality care. Differences in overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS, relapse, or progression of disease or death considered an event) based on adherence to QI were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models.

RESULTS

Younger age, no comorbidities, and HER2-negative tumor were associated with increased odds ratios for receiving quality care, whereas tumor stage and type of hospital had no significant association. Median follow-up was 54.5 months. Not receiving quality care resulted in an increased risk of dying [hazard ratio (HR) 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.66; p = 0.026]. Difference in EFS between two groups was significant after adjusting for case mix and type of hospital (HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.29-2.52; p = 0.001) but disappeared when type of treatment was added into the model (HR 1.30; 95% CI 0.89-1.90; p = 0.178).

CONCLUSION

Observed comorbidity and age bias in delivering quality breast cancer care could be medically justifiable, whereas observed deviations dependent on HER2 status are puzzling. Complete adherence of treatment to quality indicators resulted in better OS.

A method for analyzing inpatient care variability through physicians' orders

OBJECTIVE

Administrators assess care variability through chart review or cost variability to inform care standardization efforts. Chart review is costly and cost variability is imprecise. This study explores the potential of physician orders as an alternative measure of care variability.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The authors constructed an order variability metric from adult Vanderbilt University Hospital patients treated between 2013 and 2016. The study compared how well a cost variability model predicts variability in the length of stay compared to an order variability model. Both models adjusted for covariates such as severity of illness, comorbidities, and hospital transfers.

RESULTS

The order variability model significantly minimized the Akaike information criterion (superior outcome) compared to the cost variability model. This result also held when excluding patients who received intensive care.

CONCLUSION

Order variability can potentially typify care variability better than cost variability. Order variability is a scalable metric, calculable during the course of care.

Providers and Patients Caught Between Standardization and Individualization: Individualized Standardization as a Solution Comment on "(Re) Making the Procrustean Bed? Standardization and Customization as Competing Logics in Healthcare"

In their 2017 article, Mannion and Exworthy provide a thoughtful and theory-based analysis of two parallel trends in modern healthcare systems and their competing and conflicting logics: standardization and customization. This commentary further discusses the challenge of treatment decision-making in times of evidence-based medicine (EBM), shared decision-making and personalized medicine. From the perspective of systems theory, we propose the concept of individualized standardization as a solution to the problem. According to this concept, standardization is conceptualized as a guiding framework leaving room for individualization in the patient physician interaction. The theoretical background is the concept of context management according to systems theory. Moreover, the comment suggests multidisciplinary teams as a possible solution for the integration of standardization and individualization, using the example of multidisciplinary tumor conferences and highlighting its limitations. The comment also supports the authors’ statement of the patient as co-producer and introduces the idea that the competing logics of standardization and individualization are a matter of perspective on macro, meso and micro levels.