Shared decision-making in breast cancer: discrepancy between the treatment efficacy required by patients and by physicians.

Several factors can influence individual perceptions of the expected benefit of recommended adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. This study investigated differences between patients and physicians with regard to the required efficacy of treatment and the factors influencing patients' and physicians' willingness to accept different therapeutic options. A total of 9,000 questionnaires were distributed to patients with breast cancer, and 6,938 questionnaires were distributed to physicians treating breast cancer patients. The patients were asked for personal information and about their medical history and experiences during treatment. The physicians were asked about personal information and their specialty and work environment. The treatment efficacy required by the two groups was assessed using six virtual cases of breast cancer and the treatment regimens proposed, with specific benefits and side effects. A total of 2,155 patients and 527 physicians responded to the questionnaire (return rates of 23.9 and 7.6 %). Significantly different ratings between patients and physicians with regard to the expected benefit of certain treatment options were observed. The differences were noted not only for chemotherapy but also for antihormonal and antibody treatments. Whereas physicians had a quite realistic view of the expected treatment benefits, the patients' expectations were varied. Approximately one-fifth of the patients were willing to accept treatment regimens even with marginal anticipated benefits, whereas one-third required unrealistic treatment benefits. Several influencing factors that were significantly associated with the quality rating of treatment regimens in the groups of breast cancer patients and physicians were also identified. In contrast to physicians, many breast cancer patients required treatment benefits beyond what was realistically possible, although a large group of patients were also satisfied with minimal benefits. Individual factors were also identified in both groups that significantly influence thresholds for accepting adjuvant treatment, independently of risk estimates and therapy guidelines.

HER2 status of circulating tumor cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a prospective, multicenter trial.

There is a growing body of evidence that HER2 status can change during disease recurrence or progression in breast cancer patients. In this context, re-evaluation of HER2 status by assessment of HER2 expression on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is a strategy with potential clinical application. The aim of this trial was to determine the HER2 status of CTCs in metastatic breast cancer patients comparing two CTC assays. A total of 254 patients with metastatic breast cancer from nine German university breast cancer centers were enrolled in this prospective study. HER2 status of CTCs was assessed using both the FDA-approved CellSearch® assay and AdnaTest BreastCancer™. Using the CellSearch assay, 122 of 245 (50%) patients had ≥5 CTCs, and HER2-positive CTCs were observed in 50 (41%) of these patients. Ninety of 229 (39%) patients were CTC positive using AdnaTest BreastCancer, and HER2 positivity rate was 47% (42 of 90). The rate of breast cancer patients with HER2-negative primary tumors but HER2-positive CTCs was 32% (25 of 78) and 49% (28 of 57) using the CellSearch assay and AdnaTest BreastCancer, respectively. Considering only those patients who had CTCs on both tests (n = 62), concordant results regarding HER2 positivity were obtained in 50% of the patients (31/62) (P = 0.96, κ = -0.006). HER2-positive CTCs can be detected in a relevant number of patients with HER2 negative primary tumors. Therefore, it will be mandatory to correlate the assay-dependent HER2 status of CTCs to the clinical response on HER2-targeted therapies.

Factors Influencing Decision-Making for or against Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Postmenopausal Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Patients in the EvAluate-TM Study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making for or against neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer does not follow any clear guidelines, and some patients may unnecessarily undergo chemotherapy and be exposed to the associated toxicity. The aim of this study was to identify the patient population for whom this issue may bear relevance. METHODS: Patients being treated with letrozole in the prospective multicenter noninterventional EvAluate-TM study were recruited. The percentage of patients receiving chemotherapy and factors associated with chemotherapy administration were identified. RESULTS: In all, 3,924 (37.4%) patients received chemotherapy before treatment with letrozole. Of these, 293 (20%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Younger age was predictive for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy. Overall, decisions in favor of administering chemotherapy are more likely to be made in patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is administered at a higher rate in women with a lower BMI. Concomitant medication influenced the overall decision-making regarding chemotherapy, irrespective of whether it was given on a neoadjuvant or adjuvant basis. CONCLUSION: There is an ongoing debate as to whether all of the many patients who receive chemotherapy actually benefit from it. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is frequently administered in this patient population, and this should encourage further research to resolve current clinical and research issues.