Identifying determinants of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy following breast cancer: A systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: In oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, daily oral adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years significantly reduces risks of recurrence and breast cancer-specific mortality. However, many women are poorly adherent to ET. Development of effective adherence support requires comprehensive understanding of influences on adherence. We undertook an umbrella review to identify determinants of ET adherence. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane and PROSPERO (inception to 08/2022) to identify systematic reviews on factors influencing ET adherence. Abstracted determinants were mapped to the World Health Organization's dimensions of adherence. Reviews were quality appraised and overlap assessed. RESULTS: Of 5732 citations screened, 17 reviews were eligible (9 quantitative primary studies; 4 qualitative primary studies; 4 qualitative or quantitative studies) including 215 primary papers. All five WHO dimensions influenced ET non-adherence: The most consistently identified non-adherence determinants were patient-related factors (e.g. lower perceived ET necessity, more treatment concerns, perceptions of ET 'cons' vs. 'pros'). Healthcare system/healthcare professional-related factors (e.g. perceived lower quality health professional interaction/relationship) were also important and, to a somewhat lesser extent, socio-economic factors (e.g. lower levels of social/economic/material support). Evidence was more mixed for medication-related and condition-related factors, but several may be relevant (e.g. experiencing side-effects, cost). Potentially modifiable factors are more influential than non-modifiable/fixed factors (e.g. patient characteristics). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-base on ET adherence determinants is extensive. Future empirical studies should focus on less well-researched areas and settings. The determinants themselves are numerous and complex in indicating that adherence support should be multifaceted, addressing multiple determinants.

Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) in the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). RESULTS: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0-100 per cent; P < 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5-100 per cent; P < 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care.

Mastitis and breast abscess is a painful infection of the breast. It is an extremely common breast problem. One in three women can get this condition at some stage in their life. To treat a breast abscess, the pus inside should be drained out of the body. This can be done either by cutting into the breast using surgery or by inserting a fine needle using an ultrasonography scan (which uses ultrasound). Fine-needle drainage has the benefit that it does not require admission to hospital. Surgery can cause the breast to look misshapen. It is unknown which method is used more often in the UK and Ireland. The aim of this study was to describe how mastitis and breast abscesses are treated in the UK and Ireland. This study involved a survey of practice (phase 1) and collection of data, which are routinely recorded for these patients (phase 2). This study involved 69 hospitals and 1312 patient records. One in five women had an operation for a breast abscess. This was higher than expected. Six in 10 women had a pus drainage using a fine needle. The chance of having an operation depended on the hospital. Women that came to hospital at the weekend were almost twice as likely to have an operation. One in five women were admitted to hospital. The chances of that more than doubled if a woman came to hospital at the weekend. There are differences in treatment of mastitis and breast abscesses across the UK and Ireland. Changes need to be put in place to make access to treatment more equal.

Quality of Life and Treatment-Related Side Effects in Patients With HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer: Findings From a Multicountry Survey.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is a critical factor in decision-making for advanced breast cancer (ABC). There is a need to improve how QOL and treatment-related side effects (SEs) that impact it are clinically assessed. We examined healthcare professionals' (HCPs') and patients' perspectives on the importance of QOL discussions and the impact of SEs on QOL in clinical settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted (7/2020-5/2021) among oncologists, nurses, and patients with HR+/HER2- ABC in 7 countries. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 502 HCPs and 467 patients. Overall, 88% of oncologists and 49% of patients recalled QOL discussions at follow-up. In the first- through fourth-line (1L, 2L, 3L, and 4L) settings, respectively, 48%, 57%, 79%, and 85% of oncologists reported QOL was very important; 73% and 45% of patients receiving 1L and 2L treatment and 40% receiving 3L+ treatment indicated QOL was important. Patients reported that insomnia, anxiety, back pain, fatigue, diarrhea, hot flashes, low sexual interest, and loss of appetite had a moderate/severe impact on QOL. Of patients experiencing certain SEs, ≥64% did not discuss them with HCPs until there was a moderate/severe impact on QOL. In patients receiving a CDK4/6 inhibitor, SEs, including insomnia, diarrhea, back pain, and fatigue, had a moderate/severe impact on QOL. CONCLUSIONS: This survey discovered disconnects between HCPs and patients with ABC on the importance of QOL discussions and the impact of SEs on QOL. These data support the use of ABC-specific QOL questionnaires that closely monitor SEs impacting QOL.

Development of the HT&Me intervention to support women with breast cancer to adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy and improve quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Approximately 80% of breast cancers are oestrogen receptor positive (ER+). Patients treated surgically are usually recommended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for 5-10 years. AET significantly reduces recurrence, but up to 50% of women do not take it as prescribed. OBJECTIVE: To co-design and develop an intervention to support AET adherence and improve health-related quality-of-life (QoL) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: Design and development of the HT&Me intervention took a person-based approach and was guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, based on evidence and underpinned by theory. Literature reviews, behavioural analysis, and extensive key stakeholder involvement informed 'guiding principles' and the intervention logic model. Using co-design principles, a prototype intervention was developed and refined. RESULTS: The blended tailored HT&Me intervention supports women to self-manage their AET. It comprises initial and follow-up consultations with a trained nurse, supported with an animation video, a web-app and ongoing motivational 'nudge' messages. It addresses perceptual (e.g. doubts about necessity, treatment concerns) and practical (e.g. forgetting) barriers to adherence and provides information, support and behaviour change techniques to improve QoL. Iterative patient feedback maximised feasibility, acceptability, and likelihood of maintaining adherence; health professional feedback maximised likelihood of scalability. CONCLUSIONS: HT&Me has been systematically and rigorously developed to promote AET adherence and improve QoL, and is complemented with a logic model documenting hypothesized mechanisms of action. An ongoing feasibility trial will inform a future randomised control trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Quality of life with ribociclib versus abemaciclib as first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Background: A cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy is recommended as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint that affects treatment decisions. Understanding the relevance of CDK4/6i treatment on QoL is gaining importance given use in earlier treatment lines for ABC and an emerging role in treating early breast cancer in which QoL may be more impactful. In the absence of head-to-head trial data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) permits comparative efficacy between trials. Objective: In this analysis, patient-reported QoL for MONALEESA-2 [ribociclib + aromatase inhibitor (AI)] and MONARCH 3 (abemaciclib + AI) was compared using MAIC with a focus on individual domains. Design: An anchored MAIC of QoL comparing ribociclib + AI versus abemaciclib + AI was performed using data from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires. Methods: Individual patient data from MONALEESA-2 and published aggregated data from MONARCH 3 were included in this analysis. Time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) was calculated as the time from randomization to a ⩾10-point deterioration with no later improvement above this threshold. Results: Patients from the ribociclib (n = 205) and placebo (n = 149) arms of MONALEESA-2 were matched with patients from the abemaciclib (n = 328) and placebo (n = 165) arms of MONARCH 3. After weighting, baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. TTSD significantly favored ribociclib versus abemaciclib in appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR), 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.81], diarrhea (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.79), fatigue (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.96), and arm symptoms (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). TTSD did not significantly favor abemaciclib compared with ribociclib in any functional or symptom scale of the QLQ-C30 or BR-23 questionnaires. Conclusions: This MAIC indicates that ribociclib + AI is associated with better symptom-related QoL than abemaciclib + AI for postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated in the first-line setting. Trial registration: NCT01958021 (MONALEESA-2) and NCT02246621 (MONARCH 3).

Quality-of-life methodology in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Current tools and perspectives for the future.

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as important when evaluating cancer treatments. The use, reporting, and analysis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), however, are not standardized in clinical trials and are often poorly implemented in clinical practice. We report the results of a systematic literature review (PubMed search: January 1, 2000 to August 15, 2020) of PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Further inspection of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor publications was performed to examine PROMs in the HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative setting. A total of 88 results were identified in the initial search; 32 were included in the final analysis. Among included studies, most (66%) had been published in the last 5 years (2015 to 2020). CDK4/6 inhibitors (38%) were the most common agents reported. No clear standard for PROM use, reporting, or analysis was found. The most common PROMs were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30; 59%) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B; 34%). Important differences, among studies that reported them, ranged from 5 to 10 points for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 8 points for the FACT-B total score. This review showed that a lack of clear consistency remains for PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of HR+ ABC. However, HRQOL is of high interest in the literature, including for CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Radiotherapy-induced skin reactions: assessment and management.

Radiotherapy, the use of high-energy rays to either kill cancer cells or treat some benign tumours, is undoubtedly a positive intervention. However, as the primary mode of action in radiotherapy treatment is the killing of cells to prevent replication, other non-cancerous cells may be affected. For example, up to 85% of patients will experience some form of skin reaction, which will range from local erythema to moist desquamation. Such reactions are not only distressing and painful for the patient, if severe enough, they may warrant a halt in treatment. This article outlines the aims and nature of radiotherapy, and then discusses the aetiology of skin reactions, risk factors for reaction, and assessment tools. Management interventions will also be shown, with emphasis on silicone dressings.

Reconstruction for breast cancer in a nutshell.

Breast cancer is a disease many will experience. Depending on the size of the cancer, the size of the host breast, and whether it is multi-focal, a mastectomy may be recommended as part of the treatment. If this is the case, an immediate breast reconstruction may be offered. This article will describe the three main types of breast reconstruction and discuss pertinent issues regarding this, including complications, surgery to the other (contraleteral) breast and potential psychological implications of this surgery.

Helping survivors to adjust after cancer.

The concept of "cancer survivorship" has received considerable attention over the past three years as increasing numbers of people live with and beyond cancer. Previously, attention may have focused more on treatments for cancer and the likelihood of their success. In recent years, interest has moved to the after-effects of treatment, and how people can return to their lives while recovering. This article discusses the various ways in which cancer and its treatment may affect survivors, and how nurses, in both hospital and the community, can help them to adjust and recover.

Over-diagnosis is a price worth paying for lives saved.

The debate about whether the benefits of breast screening outweigh the perceived harms reached fever pitch in October 2011, prompting an independent review.

Breast awareness and screening.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK. Breast awareness and screening, along with better treatment, can significantly improve outcomes, and more women than ever are now surviving the disease. This article discusses breast awareness and screening, symptoms and risk factors for breast cancer, and how nurses can raise breast awareness and screening uptake.

Teaching by telephone: the BCN Forum initiative.

A recent piece in the Nursing Standard highlighted that an increasing proportion of nurses are unable to fulfil vital education because of staff shortages (Dean, 2011). Indeed, it is becoming more and more difficult for people to take days off from their clinical responsibilities; as a result, we have to be cleverer about how we fit education into practice.

Are nurses blurring their identity by extending or delegating roles?

Nursing may be going through an identity crisis. The Department of Health commissioned research identifying where nurses stand within society (Maben and Griffiths, 2008), 'with the stimulus for the report being the sense that nursing had lost its way' (Maben and Griffiths, 2008). The professional identity of nursing appears to be unclear and an area where confusion and conflicting opinions are invisible. This, combined with the extension of roles that many nurses have accepted in recent years, may have allowed a blurring of boundaries between healthcare professions, which has resulted in a blurring of the professional identity of the nurse. Perhaps, while nursing was busily extending, expanding or delegating more traditional nursing duties, it lost its way. To this end, this article concentrates on identifying what professional identity means, then investigates changing roles and role extension nurses are undertaking, referring to relevant literature.