Accuracy of self-reported cancer treatment data in young breast cancer survivors

Information needs during cancer care: Qualitative research with locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Brazil, China, Germany, & the US

Objective

This study aimed to identify the information needs and factors for making informed treatment decisions among a diverse group of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with LACC patients of diverse demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds within two years of their cancer diagnosis. Trained moderators asked open-ended questions about patients' cancer journeys. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software to identify emergent themes.

Results

In 2022, 92 LACC patients in the United States (n = 26), Brazil (n = 25), China (n = 25), and Germany (n = 16) participated in the study. Physicians were valued sources of information, providing patients with details on prognosis, treatment options, and side effects. While most patients trusted their physicians, one-third sought a second opinion to validate their diagnosis or find a more trusted physician.Most patients conducted their own research on treatment options, side effects, causes of LACC, symptoms, and others' experiences. Challenges to information searches included understanding medical terms, finding relevant information, and evaluating source credibility.Overall, patients felt knowledgeable enough to participate in treatment decisions, either by accepting the recommended treatment or collaborating with their physicians. Nearly one-third of patients desired a more significant role in the decision-making process.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of physicians providing LACC patients comprehensive and understandable information, while involving them in the decision-making process. Understanding LACC patients' motivations to seek information and their willingness to actively engage in treatment decisions can lead to improved patient satisfaction in their cancer care.

Decision quality and regret with treatment decisions in women with breast cancer: Pre-operative breast MRI and breast density

PURPOSE

We evaluated self-report of decision quality and regret with breast cancer surgical treatment by pre-operative breast MRI use in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a survey with 957 women aged 18 + with stage 0-III breast cancer identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants self-reported receipt of pre-operative breast MRI. Primary outcomes were process measures in the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (BCS-DQI) (continuous outcome) and Decision Regret Scale (dichotomized outcome as any/none). Generalized estimating equations with linear and logit link were used to estimate adjusted associations between breast MRI and primary outcomes. All analyses were also stratified by breast density.

RESULTS

Survey participation rate was 27.9% (957/3430). Study population was primarily > 60 years, White, college educated, and diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Pre-operative breast MRI was reported in 46% of women. A higher proportion of women who were younger age (< 50 years), commercially insured, and self-detected their breast cancer reported pre-operative breast MRI use. In adjusted analysis, pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use was associated with a small but statistically significantly higher decision quality scores (69.5 vs 64.7, p-value = 0.043). Decision regret did not significantly differ in women who reported pre-operative breast MRI use compared with no use (54.2% v. 48.7%, respectively, p-value = 0.11). Study results did not vary when stratified by breast density for either primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Breast MRI use in the diagnostic work-up of breast cancer does not negatively alter women's perceptions of surgical treatment decisions in early survivorship.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03029286.

Identifying and describing cancer survivors: Implications for cancer survivorship research and clinical care

BACKGROUND

Gathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross-sectional studies.

METHODS

Using publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross-sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self-reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

The authors identified 14 national cross-sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?" Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no standard method for assessing self-reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross-sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

Genetic testing and surgical treatment after breast cancer diagnosis: Results from a national online cohort

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer has implications for breast cancer decision-making. We examined genetic testing rates, factors associated with testing, and the relationship between genetic testing and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM).

METHODS

Patients with breast cancer (2000-2015) from The Health of Women Study were identified and categorized as low, moderate, or high-likelihood of the genetic mutation using a previously published scale based on period-relevant national guidelines incorporating age and family history. Genetic testing and CPM rates were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 4170 patients (median age 56-years), 38% were categorized as high-likelihood of having a genetic mutation. Among high-likelihood women, 67% underwent genetic testing, the odds of which were increased among women of higher-education and White-race (p < .001). Among 2028 patients reporting surgical treatment, 385 (19%) chose CPM. CPM rate was highest among mutation-positive women (41%), but 26% of women with negative tests still underwent CPM. Independent of test result, genetic testing increased the odds of CPM on multivariate analysis (adjusted-OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.29-2.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing rates were higher among women at high-likelihood of mutation carriage, but one-third of these women were not tested. Racial disparities persisted, highlighting the need to improve testing in non-White populations. CPM rates were associated with mutation-carriage and genetic testing, but many women chose CPM despite negative testing, suggesting that well-educated women consider factors other than cancer mortality in selecting CPM.

Patient, Oncologist, and Payer Preferences for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy and CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

Several adjuvant phase III trials are evaluating cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (eBC). This study examines preferences for this combination regimen and ET alone among patients, oncologists, and payers in the United States.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was administered to patients, practicing oncologists, and payers. In the DCE, respondents selected between hypothetical treatment profiles with attributes associated with ET monotherapy and CDK4/6i + ET regimens. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), nausea, diarrhea, neutropenia, alopecia, dosing schedule, and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Payers had the additional attribute of annual per-patient treatment cost. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute-level and relative attribute importance.

RESULTS

For patients (n=300) and oncologists (n=200), iDFS was most important (2 to 3 times more important than the next most important attribute), followed by neutropenia and diarrhea risks for patients and oncologists, respectively. Patients and oncologists required an improvement in iDFS of 8.0 and 5.6 percentage-points, respectively, to accept an increase in diarrhea risk from 11% to 81%. Payers (n=60) viewed annual per-patient cost as most important for treatment access decision-making, closely followed by iDFS. Payers required an improvement in iDFS of 21.8 percentage-points to accept an increase in cost from $5,100 to $149,400. Across all stakeholder groups, dosing schedule, alopecia risk, and ECG monitoring were perceived as least important.

CONCLUSION

Patients, oncologists, and payers expect a large absolute risk reduction in efficacy to offset the potential risks and costs of adding a CDK4/6i to current standard of care. An open discussion between all stakeholders is necessary to ensure that decision-making, whether at patient- or system-level, is informed by preferences for novel treatments, like CDK4/6is.