IMPARTER, Phase 1 of an intervention to improve patients' understanding of gene expression profiling tests in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare participants' knowledge about gene expression profiling (GEP) tests and recurrence risks after reading an information leaflet with that following viewing of an information film. METHODS: Using a randomised cross-over design, at time-point one (T1), women aged 45-75 years without breast cancer either read leaflets or watched information films about Oncotype DX or Prosigna tests. Participants answered nine questions assessing knowledge (maximum score 18). Next-day information in the opposite modality was provided and knowledge re-assessed. Additional questions probed which format was easiest to understand, participants' preferences for film or leaflet and their reasons for these. RESULTS: 120 women participated (60 received OncotypeDX films and leaflets; 60 received the Prosigna versions). T1 mean knowledge scores were higher following film viewing (13.37) compared with that after reading leaflets (9.25) (mean difference 4.1; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 3.2, 5.0). When participants read leaflets first and subsequently viewed films, all increased their scores (mean + 6.08, from T1 of 9.25, p < 0.0001; 95% CI 5.44, 6.72). When films were viewed first, followed by leaflets, (36/60, 60%), participants' scores declined (mean-1.55 from T1 of 13.37, p < 0.001; 95% CI -2.32, -0.78). A majority of participants expressed preferences for the films (88/120, 73.3%) irrespective as to whether they described OncotypeDX or Prosigna. Reasons included the clarity, ease of understanding, visual material and reassuring voice-over. CONCLUSION: Discussions between oncologists and patients about recurrence risk results can be challenging. Information leaflets may aid understanding but often employ complex language. Information films significantly improved knowledge and were preferred by participants.

Therapeutic aims of drugs offering only progression-free survival are misunderstood by patients, and oncologists may be overly optimistic about likely benefits.

PURPOSE: The use of novel and often expensive drugs offering limited survival benefit in advanced disease is controversial. Treatment recommendations are influenced by patient characteristics and trial data showing overall response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS is frequently the primary outcome in licencing studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study Assessing the 'VALue' to patients of PROgression Free Survival (AVALPROFS), oncologists completed checklists at baseline following consultations with patients. Questions probed perceived clinical benefits of the drugs to populations in general. Patients completed study-specific interview schedules at baseline, 6 weeks into treatment, and at withdrawal due to toxicity or progression. Patients also completed tumour- and treatment-specific quality of life questionnaires monthly for their time in the study. Only baseline results are reported here. RESULTS: Thirty-two UK oncologists discussed management options with 90 patients with heterogeneous advanced cancers. Oncologists' estimates of medical benefit in general from treatment varied between 10 and 80 %. They expected 46/90 (51 %) of their patients to derive some clinical benefit from the prescribed treatment but were either unsure or expected none for 44/90 (49 %). Predictions of life expectancy were variable but 62 % (56/90) of patients were expected to survive longer with treatment. A majority of patients 51/90 (57 %) had 'no idea' or were 'unclear' what PFS meant and 45/90 (50 %) thought extension of life was the primary therapeutic aim of treatment. CONCLUSION: Discussions between doctors and patients with metastatic disease about future management plans and likely therapeutic gains are challenging. Factors influencing decisions about putative benefits of novel drugs are often applied inconsistently can be overly optimistic and may even contradict published data.

No man's land: information needs and resources of men with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

The majority of men treated for prostate cancer will eventually develop castrate-resistant disease (CRPC) with metastases (mCRPC). There are several options for further treatment: chemotherapy, third-line hormone therapy, radium, immunotherapy, and palliation. Current ASCO guidelines for survivors of prostate cancer recommend that an individual's information needs at all stages of disease are assessed and that patients are provided with or referred to the appropriate sources for information and support. Earlier reviews have highlighted the dearth of such services and we wished to see if the situation had improved more recently. Unfortunately, we conclude that there is still a lack of good-quality congruent information easily accessible specifically for men with mCRPC and insufficient data regarding the risks, harms, and benefits of different management plans. More research providing a clear evidence base about treatment consequences using patient reported outcome measures is required.

Teams Talking Trials: results of an RCT to improve the communication of cancer teams about treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that communication between members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is often suboptimal and communication about trials between MDTs and their patients is difficult. Educational interventions can help dyadic exchanges with different aspects of trial recruitment but less work has focussed on team interventions. METHODS: 22 multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK participated in an RCT of a novel Teams Talking Trials (TTT) Workshop aimed at improving the following: awareness, involvement, communication and recruitment to cancer trials. MDTs were randomised following either 6 or 12 months of audits, which were repeated after the intervention. Audits included numbers approached about trials, team members' attitudes, involvement and awareness of their teams' trial portfolios. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of approaching patients about trials post workshop (estimated improvement 22% higher regression coefficient of 0.2, exp. (0.2)=1.22). There was improvement in team members' involvement in trials in 4 areas (p≤0.04): the pressure to enter patients into RCTs, the likelihood of a start-up meeting to discuss a newly accepted trial, the informational role played by individuals and recognition of this HCP's role by other team members. Also, confidence in communication about RCTS increased and awareness of different aspects of trial management improved on all 14 aspects (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Attendance by teams at focussed workshops designed to enhance communication and trial recruitment improved several aspects of team functioning, but a significant impact on the number of patients approached could not be demonstrated.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer (AChEW): an observational study identifying MDT perceptions and barriers to decision making.

BACKGROUND: As few older women with breast cancer receive adjuvant chemotherapy, we examined the barriers and perceptions of 24 UK NHS multidisciplinary breast cancer teams to offering this treatment to women ≥70 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Questionnaires regarding 803 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were completed by specialist teams following discussion or outpatient consultation. RESULTS: Of 803 patients, 116 (14%), all <85 years, were offered chemotherapy and 66 (8%) received it. Only 94 of 309 (30%) of women with high-risk disease were offered chemotherapy, and 53 (17%) received it. The most common reasons for not offering chemotherapy were 'other treatments more appropriate' (usually patients with ER-positive tumours) or 'benefits too small' (63% and 54% of patients, respectively). Co-morbidities and frailty were less common reasons but became more frequent with increasing age. Recommendations regarding chemotherapy were made in the absence of documented HER2 and performance status in 29% and 33%, respectively. Treatment offered varied considerably between cancer centres. CONCLUSIONS: National guidelines need development describing the minimally acceptable data for decision making, incorporating objective fitness measures and specific treatment recommendations. Such guidelines will require educational support for implementation but should standardise care and improve chemotherapy uptake in this increasing population of older patients.

Clinical benefit in patients with metastatic bone disease: results of a phase 3 study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic bone disease are living longer in the metastatic stage due to improvements in cancer therapy, making strategies to prevent the aggravation of bone disease and its complications, such as skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, increasingly important. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: In this phase 3 trial in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma, denosumab reduced the risk of radiation to bone by 22% relative to zoledronic acid (P = 0.026), prevented worsening of pain and pain interference (2-point increase in Brief Pain Inventory score; P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid), and reduced the frequency of a shift from no/weak opioid analgesic use to strong opioids (P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid at months 3-5). Denosumab delayed the time to moderate-to-severe pain compared with zoledronic acid in patients with mild or no pain at the baseline (P = 0.04), supporting early treatment. Health-related quality-of-life scores were similar in both groups. The number needed to treat to avoid one SRE for denosumab was 3 patient-years versus placebo and 10 patient-years versus zoledronic acid. CONCLUSION: The use of denosumab was associated with better prevention of the complications of metastatic bone disease secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma versus zoledronic acid.

Long-term assessment of quality of life in the Intergroup Exemestane Study: 5 years post-randomisation.

BACKGROUND: The Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) (ISRCTN11883920) demonstrated improved survival for postmenopausal women with ER-positive/unknown primary breast cancer who switched to exemestane after 2-3 years tamoxifen, compared with those continuing on tamoxifen to complete 5 years therapy. This was achieved without detriment to on-treatment quality-of-life (QoL). We report on- and post-treatment QoL impact in IES. METHODS: A total of 582 patients from 8 countries participated in the QoL substudy. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and endocrine symptom subscale (ES) were completed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48 and 60 months. The primary endpoint was FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI); secondary endpoints included severity of individual endocrine symptoms. RESULTS: Both the groups showed gradual improvement in overall QoL and lessening of total endocrine symptoms post treatment compared with baseline (P<0.002). There was no evidence of any between-group differences in TOI. Vasomotor complaints remained high on treatment. Vaginal discharge was more frequent (P<0.01) with tamoxifen up to 24 months from baseline. In both the groups, post-treatment libido did not recover to baseline levels. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits of switching to exemestane are accompanied by good overall QoL. Although some symptoms persist, the majority of endocrine symptoms improve after treatment completion.

Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in the older breast cancer patient.

As the world population ages, the incidence of cancer will probably also increase as it is a disease predominantly affecting older people. However, those aged 70 years or more have largely been excluded from clinical trials. This review focuses on breast cancer. Increasingly there is recognition that many older breast cancer patients are being undertreated and could and should be offered the same treatments as younger patients. Comprehensive assessment of the quality of any survival benefit from treatments is also needed to ensure that in the future older patients can make fully informed decisions about their treatment options. The aim of this overview is two-fold: first to describe methods by which to assess quality of life; and second to review the recent surgical, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and other studies that include such assessment with older breast cancer patients. Current studies are also outlined, including quality of life assessments, and recommendations are made for future research in this area.

Treatment decision-making in breast cancer: the patient-doctor relationship.

A diagnosis of breast cancer, whether the disease is early or advanced, can be devastating. With this in mind, constructive patient-physician relationships are essential to minimizing disease-related stress and anxiety, as patients undergo treatment and learn to cope with their diagnosis. Good communication skills are vital, and achieve measurable benefits, yet doctors receive very little training in communication. Patients may find it difficult to process large amounts of information, may not understand medical terminology, and can become confused or scared during discussions. They may need time to absorb information, and discuss it with friends and family, before treatment decisions are made. Patient awareness of treatment options is greater than ever, largely because of media exposure and the internet. Consequently, patients' expectations and desire to be involved in treatment choice are increasing, although some patients still prefer to leave decision-making to their doctor. Information about potential side-effects and other treatment burdens is vital, if patients are to make truly informed choices. Knowing in advance what side effects may be encountered, and how to manage them, can also help to improve adherence to treatment, which is necessary for patients to gain the maximum benefit. Side effects that patients find most problematic often differ from those that most concern doctors. Individual patients have different needs and expectations that must be respected, but ensuring that they understand their diagnosis, and the expected benefits and potential risks of treatment, is the key to establishing a good therapeutic relationship and providing the best possible care.

WITHDRAWN: A qualitative study looking at the psychosocial implications of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy.

The publisher regrets that this is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published in The Breast, 12 (2003) 1-9, doi:10.1016/S0960-9776(02)00135-2. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn.

Survival and safety of exemestane versus tamoxifen after 2-3 years' tamoxifen treatment (Intergroup Exemestane Study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early improvements in disease-free survival have been noted when an aromatase inhibitor is given either instead of or sequentially after tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer. However, little information exists on the long-term effects of aromatase inhibitors after treatment, and whether these early improvements lead to real gains in survival. METHODS: 4724 postmenopausal patients with unilateral invasive, oestrogen-receptor-positive or oestrogen-receptor-unknown breast cancer who were disease-free on 2-3 years of tamoxifen, were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane (n=2352) or to continue tamoxifen (n=2372) for the remainder of a 5-year endocrine treatment period. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival; overall survival was a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were intention-to-treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN11883920. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 55.7 months (range 0-89.7), 809 events contributing to the analysis of disease-free survival had been reported (354 exemestane, 455 tamoxifen); unadjusted hazard ratio 0.76 (95% CI 0.66-0.88, p=0.0001) in favour of exemestane, absolute benefit 3.3% (95% CI 1.6-4.9) by end of treatment (ie, 2.5 years after randomisation). 222 deaths occurred in the exemestane group compared with 261 deaths in the tamoxifen group; unadjusted hazard ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-1.02, p=0.08), 0.83 (0.69-1.00, p=0.05) when 122 patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that early improvements in disease-free survival noted in patients who switch to exemestane after 2-3 years on tamoxifen persist after treatment, and translate into a modest improvement in overall survival.

Postmenopausal women undergoing transvaginal ultrasound screening prefer not to have chaperones.

The Royal College of Radiologists has recommended chaperones of the appropriate gender for those undergoing intimate scans. This has significant implications for clinical and research programmes. Two hundred and fifty women undergoing scanning in a screening trial were sent postal questionnaires to determine their views as to the presence of chaperones and the gender of ultrasonographers. Ninety-five percent of 198 women stated that they would not like another person to be present during transvaginal scanning. Of greater consequence to women was the gender of the ultrasonographer, with 83.3% expressing a preference for a female ultrasonographer. This needs to be considered in making decisions about allocation of scarce resources.

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature.

Phase 1 (P1) trials are vital to the development of cancer treatments; however, the patients involved in these trials are unlikely to receive any therapeutic benefit, and there are significant possibilities that they will experience serious side effects. Ethical requirements stipulate that patients must be adequately informed before they consent to participate in P1 trials. This review focuses on studies that have measured patient comprehension of information given during the informed consent process of P1 cancer trials. Patients consenting to participate in P1 trials currently have a limited understanding of trial purpose, an unrealistic expectation of the benefits and risks associated with trial participation and a questionable appreciation of their right to abstain or withdraw. Health care professionals recruiting to P1 trials need clear and practical guidelines and training packages designed to ensure that all details of P1 trials are communicated effectively to eligible patients.

Patients' preferences for adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer: what makes it worthwhile?

Adjuvant endocrine therapy improves recurrence and survival rates, but has side effects and is inconvenient. The aim of this study was to determine the preferences of premenopausal women who had adjuvant endocrine therapy in a randomised trial. In all, 85 (or eighty-five) women completed semistructured interviews 6-30 months after finishing adjuvant endocrine therapy. Hypothetical scenarios based on known potential survival times (5 or 15 years) and rates (60% or 80% at 5 years) without adjuvant endocrine therapy were used to determine the smallest gains women judged necessary to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile. Although a third of the women considered gains of 1% in survival rates or 6 months in survival times sufficient to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile, more than half the women required gains of at least 5% in survival rates or 3 years in survival time as necessary to make adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile. Larger benefits were required by women who had longer treatment, worse side effects, and by those who were treated with goserelin alone. The route of administration (tablet vs injection) did not affect preferences and some women judged small benefits sufficient to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile, but many women required larger benefits than their counterparts in similar studies of preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy.

A qualitative study looking at the psychosocial implications of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy.

The study objective was to explore the attitudes and beliefs of women at high risk of developing breast cancer who accepted or declined bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews of 60 women who opted for BPM and 20 women who declined. Interviews took place in the women's own homes. Qualitative analysis led to the generation of a number of categories that provided conceptualisation of the women's primary experiences. These categories included: anxiety; surgery; sexual impact; information; gene testing; reconstruction and support. The study revealed that there is a clear need for information to be written specifically for this patient group and that emotional support for high-risk women offered BPM should be provided.

Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care.

Healthcare professionals often censor their information giving to patients in an attempt to protect them from potentially hurtful, sad or bad news. There is a commonly expressed belief that what people do not know does not harm them. Analysis of doctor and nurse/patient interactions reveals that this well-intentioned but misguided assumption about human behaviour is present at all stages of cancer care. Less than honest disclosure is seen from the moment that a patient reports symptoms, to the confirmation of diagnosis, during discussions about the therapeutic benefits of treatment, at relapse and terminal illness. This desire to shield patients from the reality of their situation usually creates even greater difficulties for patients, their relatives and friends and other members of the healthcare team. Although the motivation behind economy with the truth is often well meant, a conspiracy of silence usually results in a heightened state of fear, anxiety and confusion--not one of calm and equanimity. Ambiguous or deliberately misleading information may afford short-term benefits while things continue to go well, but denies individuals and their families opportunities to reorganize and adapt their lives towards the attainment of more achievable goals, realistic hopes and aspirations. In this paper, some examples and consequences of accidental, deliberate, if well-meaning, attempts to disguise the truth from patients, taken verbatim from interviews, are given, together with cases of unintentional deception or misunderstandings created by the use of ambiguous language. We also provide evidence from research studies showing that although truth hurts, deceit may well hurt more. 'I think the best physician is the one who has the providence to tell to the patients according to his knowledge the present situation, what has happened before, and what is going to happen in the future' (Hippocrates).

The impact of endocrine therapy on patients with breast cancer: a review of the literature.

This paper reviews studies which have examined the impact of endocrine therapy on the quality of life (QOL) of patients with breast cancer. In patients with primary disease, published studies suggest that endocrine therapies, such as tamoxifen, significantly increase both gynaecological and vasomotor symptoms. However, few studies have been able to demonstrate the impact which these symptoms have on patients' QOL. This failure can be partially attributed to a range of methodological problems. Psychosocial research in advanced disease has largely consisted of randomized controlled studies with QOL as one of several study endpoints. Second generation treatments, such as aromatase inhibitors, have frequently been compared with older treatments, such as progestin therapies. Unfortunately, QOL data reported in these studies have tended to be fairly limited. Problems with existing QOL research in endocrine treatment are discussed and recommendations are made for further work.

The psychological impact of post-operative arm morbidity following axillary surgery for breast cancer: a critical review.

In this paper we review the published research that has investigated the psychological impact of arm morbidity associated with axillary dissection for early breast cancer. This critique is particularly timely given the drive towards minimally invasive techniques, such as sentinel node biopsy, which aim to reduce the incidence and severity of post-operative arm problems. Reported symptoms are multifactorial and include numbness, pain, swelling, weakness/stiffness, and restricted shoulder mobility of the affected arm. Conclusions from the few studies that have investigated the severity, incidence, duration and psychological impact of such disability are often limited by methodological problems. We identify these limitations and examine assessment tools used to determine the psychological impact of lymphoedema. The paper highlights the need for methodological rigor in study design, and the careful selection of appropriate, sensitive, reliable and clinically meaningful outcome measures to evaluate the impact of post-operative arm morbidity.