Update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium in adult patients

Postoperative delirium (POD) remains a common, dangerous and resource-consuming adverse event but is often preventable. The whole peri-operative team can play a key role in its management. This update to the 2017 ESAIC Guideline on the prevention of POD is evidence-based and consensus-based and considers the literature between 01 April 2015, and 28 February 2022. The search terms of the broad literature search were identical to those used in the first version of the guideline published in 2017. POD was defined in accordance with the DSM-5 criteria. POD had to be measured with a validated POD screening tool, at least once per day for at least 3 days starting in the recovery room or postanaesthesia care unit on the day of surgery or, at latest, on postoperative day 1. Recent literature confirmed the pathogenic role of surgery-induced inflammation, and this concept reinforces the positive role of multicomponent strategies aimed to reduce the surgical stress response. Although some putative precipitating risk factors are not modifiable (length of surgery, surgical site), others (such as depth of anaesthesia, appropriate analgesia and haemodynamic stability) are under the control of the anaesthesiologists. Multicomponent preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative preventive measures showed potential to reduce the incidence and duration of POD, confirming the pivotal role of a comprehensive and team-based approach to improve patients' clinical and functional status.

Outcomes of complex oncoplastic breast surgery in older women. Analysis of data from the Age Gap cohort study

KEY WORDS

Breast cancer, mastectomy, breast conserving surgery, post-mastectomy reconstruction, older women, quality of life.

Cancer treatment data available in European cancer registries: Where are we and where are we going?

Population-based cancer registries are responsible for collecting incidence and survival data on all reportable neoplasms within a defined geographical area. During the last decades, the role of cancer registries has evolved beyond monitoring epidemiological indicators, as they are expanding their activities to studies on cancer aetiology, prevention, and quality of care. This expansion relies also on the collection of additional clinical data, such as stage at diagnosis and cancer treatment. While the collection of data on stage, according to international reference classification, is consolidated almost everywhere, data collection on treatment is still very heterogeneous in Europe. This article combines data from a literature review and conference proceedings together with data from 125 European cancer registries contributing to the 2015 ENCR-JRC data call to provide an overview of the status of using and reporting treatment data in population-based cancer registries. The literature review shows that there is an increase in published data on cancer treatment by population-based cancer registries over the years. In addition, the review indicates that treatment data are most often collected for breast cancer, the most frequent cancer in women in Europe, followed by colorectal, prostate and lung cancers, which are also more common. Treatment data are increasingly being reported by cancer registries, though further improvements are required to ensure their complete and harmonised collection. Sufficient financial and human resources are needed to collect and analyse treatment data. Clear registration guidelines are to be made available to increase the availability of real-world treatment data in a harmonised way across Europe.

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.

The ESSO core curriculum committee update on surgical oncology

INTRODUCTION

Surgical oncology is a defined specialty within the European Board of Surgery within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Variation in training and specialization still occurs across Europe. There is a need to align the core knowledge needed to fulfil the criteria across subspecialities in surgical oncology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The core curriculum, established in 2013, was developed with contributions from expert advisors from within the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and related subspeciality experts.

RESULTS

The current version reiterates and updates the core curriculum structure needed for current and future candidates who plans to train for and eventually sit the European fellowship exam for the European Board of Surgery in Surgical Oncology. The content included is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather to give the candidate an idea of expectations and areas for in depth study, in addition to the practical requirements. The five elements included are: Basic principles of oncology; Disease site specific oncology; Generic clinical skills; Training recommendations, and, lastly; Eligibility for the EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

As evidence-based care for cancer patients evolves through research into basic science, translational research and clinical trials, the core curriculum will evolve, mature and adapt to deliver continual improvements in cancer outcomes for patients.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: impact of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer on quality-of-life outcomes

BACKGROUND

Primary endocrine therapy may be an alternative treatment for less fit women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. This study compared quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes in older women treated with surgery or primary endocrine therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in women aged over 70 years with operable breast cancer. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of cancer QoL questionnaires QLQ-C30, -BR23, and -ELD14, and the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L score at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline variation in health, fitness, and tumour stage.

RESULTS

The study recruited 3416 women (median age 77 (range 69-102) years) from 56 breast units. Of these, 2979 (87.2 per cent) had ER-positive breast cancer; 2354 women had surgery and 500 received primary endocrine therapy (125 were excluded from analysis due to inadequate data or non-standard therapy). Median follow-up was 52 months. The primary endocrine therapy group was older and less fit. Baseline QoL differed between the groups; the mean(s.d.) QLQ-C30 global health status score was 66.2(21.1) in patients who received primary endocrine therapy versus 77.1(17.8) among those who had surgery plus endocrine therapy. In the unmatched analysis, changes in QoL between 6 weeks and baseline were noted in several domains, but by 24 months most scores had returned to baseline levels. In the matched analysis, major surgery (mastectomy or axillary clearance) had a more pronounced adverse impact than primary endocrine therapy in several domains.

CONCLUSION

Adverse effects on QoL are seen in the first few months after surgery, but by 24 months these have largely resolved. Women considering surgery should be informed of these effects.

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.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer. Impacts of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor positive early breast cancer. A risk stratified analysis of survival outcomes and quality of life

Background

Age-related breast cancer treatment variance is widespread with many older women having primary endocrine therapy (PET), which may contribute to inferior survival and local control. This propensity-matched study determined if a subgroup of older women may safely be offered PET.

Methods

Multicentre, prospective, UK, observational cohort study with propensity-matched analysis to determine optimal allocation of surgery plus ET (S+ET) or PET in women aged ≥70 with breast cancer. Data on fitness, frailty, cancer stage, grade, biotype, treatment and quality of life were collected. Propensity-matching (based on age, health status and cancer stage) adjusted for allocation bias when comparing S+ET with PET.

Findings

A total of 3416 women (median age 77, range 69–102) were recruited from 56 breast units—2854 (88%) had ER+ breast cancer: 2354 had S+ET and 500 PET. Median follow-up was 52 months. Patients treated with PET were older and frailer than patients treated with S+ET. Unmatched overall survival was inferior in the PET group (hazard ratio, (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23–0.33, P < 0.001). Unmatched breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) was also inferior in patients treated with PET (HR: 0.41, CI: 0.29–0.58, P < 0.001 for BCSS). In the matched analysis, PET was still associated with an inferior overall survival (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, P = 0.04) but not BCSS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40–1.37, P = 0.34) although at 4–5 years subtle divergence of the curves commenced in favor of surgery. Global health status diverged at certain time points between groups but over 24 months was similar when adjusted for baseline variance.

Interpretation

For the majority of older women with early ER+ breast cancer, surgery is oncologically superior to PET. In less fit, older women, with characteristics similar to the matched cohort of this study (median age 81 with higher comorbidity and functional impairment burdens, the BCSS survival differential disappears at least out to 4–5 year follow-up, suggesting that for those with less than 5-year predicted life-expectancy (>90 years or >85 with comorbidities or frailty) individualised decision making regarding PET versus S+ET may be appropriate and safe to offer. The Age Gap online decision tool may support this decision-making process (https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/).

Trial registration number

ISRCTN: 46099296.

•

Propensity matched study of women >70 with breast cancer comparing surgery or PET

•

Unmatched analysis found surgery improves overall & disease-specific survival.

•

Matched analysis (stage, age, health, frailty) found similar disease-specific survival

•

Surgery led to adverse events in 19% & negative impacts on QoL and physical function

•

Less fit women >85 may be offered PET to reduce morbidity, without survival detriment

Regaining a satisfactory quality of life and predicting functional decline after major cancer surgery in older adults: The Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) study

12051

Background: Older cancer patients value quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes as much as survival but surgical studies lack specific data. The international, multicenter GOSAFE study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03299270) aims to evaluate patients’ QoL and functional recovery (FR) after cancer surgery and to assess predictors of FR Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collected functional and clinical data before and after major elective cancer surgery on senior adults (≥70 years). Surgical outcomes were recorded (30, 90, and 180 days post-operatively) with QoL (EQ-5D-3L) and FR (Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Timed Up and Go (TUG) and MiniCog), 26 centers enrolled patients from February 2017 to April 2019. Results: 942 patients underwent a major cancer resection. Median age was 78 (range 70-95); 52.2% males, ASA III-IV 49%. 934 (99%) lived at home, 51% lived alone, and 87% were able to go out. Patients dependent (ADL < 5) were 8%. Frailty was detected by means of G8 ≤14 in 68.8% and fTRST ≥2 in 37% of patients. Major comorbidities (CCI > 6) were reported in 36% and 21% had cognitive impairment according to MiniCog (2.2% self-reported). 25% had > 3 kg weight loss, 27% were hospitalized in the last 90 days, 54% had ≥3 medications (6% none). Postoperative overall morbidity was 39.1% (30 day) and 22.5% (90 day), but Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were only 13.4% and 6.9% respectively. 30/90/180-day mortality was 3.6/6/8.9% (10/30/33% in patients with severe functional disability). At 3 months after surgery, QoL was stable/improved (mean EQ-5D index 0.78 was equivalent before vs. after surgery, while the EQ-5D VAS score > 60 raised from 74.3% at baseline to 80.2%, p < 0.01). 76.6% experienced postoperative FR/stability. Logistic regression analysis showed that ASA 3-4, CCI≥7 and CD III-IV complications are significantly associated with functional decline while a G8 > 14 has a positive association with functional recovery. Age is not associated with functional outcomes. Conclusions: The largest prospective study on older patients undergoing structured frailty assessment before and after major elective cancer surgery has shown that QoL remains stable/improves after cancer surgery. The majority of patients return to independence and G8 can predict functional recovery. Older patients with multiple comorbidities, high ASA score or postoperative severe complications are likely to functionally deteriorate after oncologic surgery Clinical trial information: NCT03299270 .

Outcomes that matter to patients: The Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) study—Analysis of 471 patients

11511

Background: Older cancer patients value functional outcomes as much as survival but surgical studies lack functional recovery (FR) data. The international, multicenter GOSAFE study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03299270) aims to evaluate patients’ quality of life (QoL)and FR after cancer surgery and to assess predictors of FR. Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collects functional and clinical data before and after major elective cancer surgery on senior adults (≥70 years). Surgical outcomes are recorded (30 days, 90 days, and 180 dayspost-operatively) with QoL(EQ-5D-3L) and FR (Activities of Daily Living (ADL) + Timed Up and Go (TUG) + MiniCog), 28centers are prospectively enrolling patients; accrual ends February 2019. Results: 643 patients underwent major cancer surgery with curative(94%) or palliative (6%) intent (February 2017-September 2018). Median age was 78(range 70-94); 51.6% males, ASA III-IV 52%. Patients dependent (ADL < 5) were 8%. Frailty was detected by G8 > 14 in 32% and fTRST≥2 in 36% of patients. 639 (99%) lived at home, 32% lived alone, and 88% were able to go out. Major comorbidities (CCI > 6) were detected in 36% and 22% had cognitive impairment according to MiniCog (5% self-reported). 26% had > 3 kg weight loss, 30% were hospitalized in the last 90 days, 45% had ≥3 medications (6% none). For 471 patients, a 90-day comprehensive evaluation was available. Postoperative morbidity was 42% (30 day) and 63.3% (90 day), but Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were only 11.2% and 17.6%. 90-day mortality was 7.4% (5% 30-day). QoL improved 90 days after surgery (mean EQ-5D index from 0.76 to 0.80). Patients with EQ-5D VAS score > 60 raised from 73.9% at baseline to 82.8% at 90 days. 29% had complete FR (ADL score > 4, MiniCog > 2, TUG < 20). Decreased functional capacity was seen in 23.4% of patients alive at 90-days. Conclusions: GOSAFE is the largest prospective study on older cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Interim analysis reports decreased functional capacity in a quarter of patients. The study will allow clinicians to associate clinical outcomes with individual factors of the preoperative assessment and create a user-friendly tool to predict outcomes that matter to patients.

Abstract P2-14-06: Withdrawn

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Citation Format: Athanasiou I, Reed MW, Shrestha A, Cheung K-L, Audisio R, Collins K, Wyld L. Withdrawn [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-06.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing 'Age Gap Cohort Study' (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

IRAS REFERENCE

115550.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsor's Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care.

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

INTRODUCTION

Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is used variably in the UK as an alternative to surgery for older women with operable breast cancer. Guidelines state that only patients with "significant comorbidity" or "reduced life expectancy" should be treated this way and age should not be a factor.

METHODS

A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was used to determine the impact of key variables (patient age, comorbidity, cognition, functional status, cancer stage, cancer biology) on healthcare professionals' (HCP) treatment preferences for operable breast cancer among older women. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify associations.

RESULTS

40% (258/641) of questionnaires were returned. Five variables (age, co-morbidity, cognition, functional status and cancer size) independently demonstrated a significant association with treatment preference (p < 0.05). Functional status was omitted from the multivariable model due to collinearity, with all other variables correlating with a preference for operative treatment over no preference (p < 0.05). Only co-morbidity, cognition and cancer size correlated with a preference for PET over no preference (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The majority of respondents selected treatment in accordance with current guidelines, however in some scenarios, opinion was divided, and age did appear to be an independent factor that HCPs considered when making a treatment decision in this population.

Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery

Surgery is essential for global cancer care in all resource settings. Of the 15.2 million new cases of cancer in 2015, over 80% of cases will need surgery, some several times. By 2030, we estimate that annually 45 million surgical procedures will be needed worldwide. Yet, less than 25% of patients with cancer worldwide actually get safe, affordable, or timely surgery. This Commission on global cancer surgery, building on Global Surgery 2030, has examined the state of global cancer surgery through an analysis of the burden of surgical disease and breadth of cancer surgery, economics and financing, factors for strengthening surgical systems for cancer with multiple-country studies, the research agenda, and the political factors that frame policy making in this area. We found wide equity and economic gaps in global cancer surgery. Many patients throughout the world do not have access to cancer surgery, and the failure to train more cancer surgeons and strengthen systems could result in as much as US $6.2 trillion in lost cumulative gross domestic product by 2030. Many of the key adjunct treatment modalities for cancer surgery--e.g., pathology and imaging--are also inadequate. Our analysis identified substantial issues, but also highlights solutions and innovations. Issues of access, a paucity of investment in public surgical systems, low investment in research, and training and education gaps are remarkably widespread. Solutions include better regulated public systems, international partnerships, super-centralisation of surgical services, novel surgical clinical trials, and new approaches to improve quality and scale up cancer surgical systems through education and training. Our key messages are directed at many global stakeholders, but the central message is that to deliver safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery to all, surgery must be at the heart of global and national cancer control planning.

The balance of clinician and patient input into treatment decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is an alternative to surgery for oestrogen receptor positive operable breast cancer in some older women. However the decision to offer PET involves complex trade-offs and is influenced by both patient choice and healthcare professional (HCP) preference. This study aimed to compare the views of patients and HCPs about this decision and explore decision-making (DM) preferences and whether these are taken into account during consultations.

METHODS

This multicentre, UK, mixed methods study had three components: (a) questionnaires to older women undergoing counseling about breast cancer treatment options which assessed their DM preferences and realities; (b) qualitative interviews with older women with operable breast cancer offered a choice of either surgery or PET and (c) qualitative interviews with HCPs (both of which focused on DM preferences in this setting).

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients and 34 HCPs were interviewed. A range of opinions about patient involvement in DM were identified. Patients indicated varying preferences for DM involvement which were variably taken into account by HCPs. These qualitative findings were broadly supported by the questionnaire results. Most patients (536/729; 73.5%) achieved their preferred DM style; however, the remainder felt that their DM preferences had not been taken into consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that whilst many older women achieve their desired level of DM engagement, some do not, raising the possibility that they may be making choices which are not concordant with their treatment preferences.