Interprofessional follow-up of patients with cancer in France (the SINPATIC study): a preliminary, qualitative study of the patient's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 19.2 million people were diagnosed with cancer, and nearly 10 million cancer patients died worldwide. An effective cancer care pathway must be based on coordination, multidisciplinarity, a personalized approach, and collaboration between stakeholders. Follow-up can be improved by good collaboration and communication between GPs and the cancer care team at a common level of organization. OBJECTIVES: To study patients with solid cancers and assess their perceptions of the care pathway, the roles of the healthcare professionals involved, and interprofessional collaboration. METHODS: In a preliminary, qualitative study (part of the SINPATIC study of general practitioners, oncologists, nurses, and patients), adult patients with cancer in the Paris area of France were interviewed between January and April 2018. Using purposive sampling, 10 patients were recruited from hospital departments and primary care. An interview guide explored 3 themes: the care pathway, the stakeholders' roles in follow-up, and interprofessional collaboration. RESULTS: For patients, dealing with cancer is a complex process of awareness, care provision, decision-making, task assignment, a lack of clarification of professional roles, a piecemeal announcement of the diagnosis of cancer by several stakeholders, organizational and administrative difficulties, non-formal collaboration in inertia (tending towards collaboration under construction), and with cancer follow-up that was usually parallel, sometimes shared, rarely sequential. CONCLUSION: This SINPATIC substudy provided us a better understanding of the complexity of the patient care pathway. Looking forward, the present findings might stimulate thoughts on the design and development of interventional studies.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for women eligible for organized breast cancer screening according to international standards: A multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: and purpose: In France, women lack information to make a shared decision to start breast cancer screening. Decision aids are useful to facilitate this discussion, yet few meet international standards. The objective of this project was to build, validate and measure the quality of a decision aid for organized breast screening in France, in line with international standards, intended for both women and healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted between January 2017 and June 2022. The prototype was developed from a qualitative study, systematic review and targeted literature review and alpha tested during two Delphi rounds. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch score and content with International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPSASi). RESULTS: An online decision aid, accessible at www.Discutons-mammo.fr, written in French was developed. The content included eligibility, information about breast screening the advantages and disadvantages of screening, patient preferences and a patient-based discussion guide using text, infographics, and videos. The Flesch readability test score was 65.4 and the IPDASi construct quality score was 176 out of 188. CONCLUSIONS: This decision aid complies with IPDASi standards and could help women eligible for breast screening in France make a shared decision with a specialized healthcare professional about whether or not to participate in organized breast screening.

Breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a decision aid on mammography screening uptake: study protocol.

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is the primary cancer among women. The World Health Organization recommends a bilateral screening mammogram every 2 years for women aged 50 to 74 years. However, it has been shown that there is an absence of information about the benefits and risks of screening. Shared medical decision-making is important to ensure patients are involved in the decision process. Decision aids can facilitative this decision-making process. This article presents a protocol to evaluate the effect of a decision aid on participation rates in the French organized BC screening program. Methods and analysis: Design and setting. The design is a 2 arm randomized controlled study, performed in the Pays de la Loire region (French West Coast). Randomization will be based on general medicine practices (Primary Care). Participants: Women aged between 50 and 74 years, eligible for BC screening. In this region, there are 75000 women, and 2800 general practitioners eligible for recruitment. Intervention: In the « Decision aid for organized cancer screening ¼ arm, the intervention will distribute invitation letters to eligible women combined with the provision of decision aid to these women and their general practitioners and an incentive to implement shared medical decision-making. In the « Standard organized cancer screening ¼ arm, only the screening invitation will be sent to eligible women. Primary endpoint: BC screening participation rates will be assessed after an 18-month follow-up period. Statistical analysis: In this non-inferiority trial, the percentage of women who are up-to-date with their screening at 18 months after the intervention will be compared across arms using a generalized mixed linear model. Discussion: The research team expect to demonstrate that providing a better explanation of the benefits and risks of BC screening is not at odds with screening participation. The study results should help policy makers thinking about implementing shared medical decision-making within the framework of organized BC screening programs in the future. Ethics and dissemination: On 6 December 2021, the protocol received a favorable opinion from the French Committee for the Protection of Persons (2021-A01583-38). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05607849. (Version 1, November 7, 2022; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05607849). The study findings will be used for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations in scientific meetings.

Prescription of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs among older patients in primary care: a French, national, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In France, general practitioners (GPs) prescribe benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (BZD/ZDs) widely, and especially to older adults. Several characteristics of patients and/or GPs linked to BZD/ZD overprescription have been described in the general population but not among older patients in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the proportion of GP consultations by patients aged 65 and over that resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription, and determine whether any GP-related factors predicted BZD/ZD overprescription in this setting. METHODS: We analyzed sociodemographic and practice-related GP characteristics, and aggregated data on consultations recorded prospectively by 117 GPs in a database between 2000 and 2010. Next, we used logistic regression models to look for factors potentially associated with BZD/ZD overprescription (defined as an above-median prescription rate). RESULTS: The GPs' mean age at inclusion was 47.4 (7.1), and 87.9% were male. During the study period, the median (95% confidence interval) proportion of consultations with patients aged 65 and over resulting in a BZD/ZD prescription was 21.8% (18.1-26.1) (range per GP: 5-34.1%). In a multivariable analysis, a greater number of chronic disease (OR [95% CI] = 2.10 [1.22-3.64]), a greater number of drugs prescribed per consultation (5.29 [2.72-10.28]), and shorter study participation were independently associated with BZD/ZD overprescription. CONCLUSIONS: BZD/ZD overprescription was associated with a greater chronic disease burden and the number of drugs prescribed per consultation but not with any sociodemographic or practice-related GP characteristics. Targeted actions are needed to help GPs limit their prescription of BZD/ZDs to older patients with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

In France, general practitioners (GPs) prescribe benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (BZD/ZDs) widely, and especially to older adults. Even though BZD/ZDs may not have a favorable risk­benefit ratio in older patients, we lack data on GP-related factors that might influence BZD/ZD overprescription in our population. The objectives of the present study were to (i) estimate the proportion of GP consultations by patients aged 65 and over that resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription and (ii) identify GP-related factors that were predictive of overprescription. To achieve this goal, we analyzed consultation notes registered by 117 GPs in a database curated by the French Society of General Practice between 2000 and 2010. About 22% of consultations by patients aged 65 and over resulted in a BZD/ZD prescription. With regard to the GPs, we did not find any sociodemographic or practice-related characteristics associated with overprescription. A greater chronic disease burden and the number of drug prescriptions (other than BZD/ZDs) per consultation was independently associated with overprescription. Targeted actions are therefore needed to help GPs limit their prescription of BZD/ZDs in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

The Prognostic Value of Eight Comorbidity Indices in Older Patients with Cancer: The ELCAPA Cohort Study.

Background: A prognostic assessment is crucial for making cancer treatment decisions in older patients. We assessed the prognostic performance (relative to one-year mortality) of eight comorbidity indices in a cohort of older patients with cancer. Methods: We studied patients with cancer aged ≥70 included in the Elderly Cancer Patient (ELCAPA) cohort between 2007 and 2010. We assessed seven nonspecific indices (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), three modified versions of the CCI, the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, the Gagne index, and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G)) and the National Cancer Institute Comorbidity Index. Results: Overall, 510 patients were included. Among patients with nonmetastatic cancer, all the comorbidity indices were independently associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 1.44 to 2.51 for one standard deviation increment; p < 0.05 for all) and had very good discriminant ability (Harrell's C > 0.8 for the eight indices), but were poorly calibrated. Among patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was independently associated with 1-year mortality (aHR (95% confidence interval): 1.26 [1.06−1.50]). Discriminant ability was moderate (0.61 to 0.70) for the subsets of patients with metastatic cancer and colorectal cancer. Conclusion: Comorbidity indices had strong prognostic value and discriminative ability for one-year mortality in older patients with nonmetastatic cancer, although calibration was poor. In older patients with metastatic cancer, only the CIRS-G was predictive of one-year mortality.

What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer screening decision aids (DAs) are designed to help women decide whether or not to participate in mammography-based programmes. We aimed to explore women's and healthcare professionals' expectations of a breast cancer screening DA, as part of the French DEDICACES study. METHODS: This French qualitative study was based on semistructured, individual interviews with women from the general population, general practitioners (GPs), midwives, gynaecologists, radiologists and screening centre managers. Sampling was purposive and used diversification criteria. The inductive analysis was based on grounded theory. RESULTS: Between April 2018 and May 2019, we interviewed 40 people: 13 women, 14 GPs, 4 gynaecologists, 3 midwives, 3 radiologists and 3 screening centre managers. The women and the healthcare professionals considered that a DA could help to improve levels of knowledge, harmonise medical practice and provide reliable, comprehensive information. Overall, the interviewees wanted an easy-to-use, intuitive, graphic-rich, interactive, computer-based, patient-centred DA. Use of the DA might be limited by a lack of familiarity with shared decision-making (SDM), the risk of misuse and a preference for asymmetric positive information. CONCLUSION: The present results are likely to facilitate the development of the first validated tool for SDM support in French breast cancer screening programmes.

Predicting Frailty and Geriatric Interventions in Older Cancer Patients: Performance of Two Screening Tools for Seven Frailty Definitions-ELCAPA Cohort.

Screening tools have been developed to identify patients warranting a complete geriatric assessment (GA). However, GA lacks standardization and does not capture important aspects of geriatric oncology practice. We measured and compared the diagnostic performance of screening tools G8 and modified G8 according to multiple clinically relevant reference standards. We included 1136 cancer patients ≥ 70 years old referred for GA (ELCAPA cohort; median age, 80 years; males, 52%; main locations: digestive (36.3%), breast (16%), and urinary tract (14.8%); metastases, 43.5%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates were compared between both tools against: (1) the detection of ≥1 or (2) ≥2 GA impairments, (3) the prescription of ≥1 geriatric intervention and the identification of an unfit profile according to (4) a latent class typology, expert-based classifications from (5) Balducci, (6) the International Society of Geriatric Oncology task force (SIOG), or using (7) a GA frailty index according to the Rockwood accumulation of deficits principle. AUROC values were ≥0.80 for both tools under all tested definitions. They were statistically significantly higher for the modified G8 for six reference standards: ≥1 GA impairment (0.93 vs. 0.89), ≥2 GA impairments (0.90 vs. 0.87), ≥1 geriatric intervention (0.85 vs. 0.81), unfit according to Balducci (0.86 vs. 0.80) and SIOG classifications (0.88 vs. 0.83), and according to the GA frailty index (0.86 vs. 0.84). Our findings demonstrate the robustness of both screening tools against different reference standards, with evidence of better diagnostic performance of the modified G8.

Quality of decision aids developed for women at average risk of breast cancer eligible for mammographic screening: Systematic review and assessment according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument.

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Predictive factors for non-participation or partial participation in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes†.

BACKGROUND: No study has investigated factors associated with non-participation or partial participation in the different combination patterns of screening programmes for all three cancers, that is, breast, colorectal and cervical cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we sought to describe combinations of cancer screening participation rates among women in the Val-de-Marne area of France and to identify individual and contextual factors associated with non-participation or partial participation. RESULTS: Women aged between 50 and 65 and who were eligible for all three screening programmes (n = 102 219) were analysed in multilevel logistic models, with the individual as the Level 1 variable and the place of residence as the Level 2 variable. The women who did not participate in any of the screening programmes were 34.4%, whereas 30.1%, 24% and 11.5% participated in one, two or all three screening programmes, respectively. Age below 55, a previous false-positive mammography, prior opportunistic mammography only, no previous mammography, membership of certain health insurance schemes (all P < 0.05) and residence in a deprived area (P < 0.001) were independently associated with non-participation or partial participation. We observed a stronger effect of deprivation on non-participation in all three cancers than in combinations of screening programmes. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the health authorities should focus on improving cancer screenings in general rather than screenings for specific types of cancer, especially among younger women and those living in the most socially deprived areas.

Continuity of care in general practice at cancer diagnosis (COOC-GP study): a national cohort study of 2853 patients.

BACKGROUND: At cancer diagnosis, it is unclear whether continuity of care (COC) between the patient and GP is safeguarded. AIM: To identify patient-GP loss of COC around the time of, and in the year after, a cancer diagnosis, together with its determinants. DESIGN AND SETTING: A post-hoc analysis of data from a prospective cohort of GPs in France, taken from a survey by the Observatoire de la Médecine Générale. METHOD: A prospective GP cohort (n = 96) filed data on patients who were diagnosed with incident cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010. COC was assessed by ascertaining the frequency of consultations and the maximal interval between them. (In France, patients see their referring/named GP in most cases.) A loss of COC was measured during the trimester before and the year after the cancer diagnosis, and the results compared with those from a 1-year baseline period before cancer had been diagnosed. A loss of COC was defined as a longer interval (that is, the maximum number of days) between consultations in the measurement periods than at baseline. Determinants of the loss in COC were assessed with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 2853 patients were included; the mean age was 66.1 years. Of these, 1440 (50.5%) were women, 389 (13.6%) had metastatic cancer, and 769 (27.0%) had a comorbidity. The mean number of consultations increased up to, and including, the first trimester after diagnosis. Overall, 26.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.3 to 28.6) of patients had a loss of COC in the trimester before the diagnosis, and 22.3% (95% CI = 20.7 to 23.9) in the year after. Increasing comorbidity score was independently associated with a reduction in the loss of COC during the year after diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] comorbidity versus no comorbidity 0.61, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.79); the same was true for metastatic status (adjusted OR metastasis versus no metastasis 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.70). CONCLUSION: As COC is a core value for GPs and for most patients, special care should be taken to prevent a loss of COC around the time of a cancer diagnosis, and in the year after.

Performance of Four Frailty Classifications in Older Patients With Cancer: Prospective Elderly Cancer Patients Cohort Study.

Purpose Frailty classifications of older patients with cancer have been developed to assist physicians in selecting cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. They have not been compared, and their performance in predicting outcomes has not been assessed. Our objectives were to assess agreement among four classifications and to compare their predictive performance in a large cohort of in- and outpatients with various cancers. Patients and Methods We prospectively included 1,021 patients age 70 years or older who had solid or hematologic malignancies and underwent a geriatric assessment in one of two French teaching hospitals between 2007 and 2012. Among them, 763 were assessed using four classifications: Balducci, International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 1, SIOG2, and a latent class typology. Agreement was assessed using the κ statistic. Outcomes were 1-year mortality and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Results All four classifications had good discrimination for 1-year mortality (C-index ≥ 0.70); discrimination was best with SIOG1. For 6-month unscheduled admissions, discrimination was good with all four classifications (C-index ≥ 0.70). For classification into three (fit, vulnerable, or frail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among the four classifications ranged from very poor (κ ≤ 0.20) to good (0.60 < κ ≤ 0.80). Agreement was best between SIOG1 and the latent class typology and between SIOG1 and Balducci. Conclusion These four frailty classifications have good prognostic performance among older in- and outpatients with various cancers. They may prove useful in decision making about cancer treatments and geriatric interventions and/or in stratifying older patients with cancer in clinical trials.

Four Distinct Health Profiles in Older Patients With Cancer: Latent Class Analysis of the Prospective ELCAPA Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated the independent prognostic value of impairments in single geriatric-assessment (GA) components in elderly cancer patients. None identified homogeneous subgroups. Our aims were to identify such subgroups based on combinations of GA components and to assess their associations with treatment decisions, admission, and death. METHODS: We prospectively included 1,021 patients aged ≥70 years who had solid or hematologic malignancies and who underwent a GA in one of two French teaching hospitals. Two geriatricians independently selected candidate GA parameters for latent class analysis, which was then performed on the 821 cases without missing data. Age, gender, tumor site, metastatic status, and inpatient versus outpatient status were used as active covariates and predictors of class membership. Outcomes were cancer treatment decisions, overall 1-year mortality, and 6-month unscheduled admissions. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the overall population of 1,021 patients and on 375 newly enrolled patients. RESULTS: We identified four classes: relatively healthy (LC1, 28%), malnourished (LC2, 36%), cognitive and mood impaired (LC3, 15%), and globally impaired (LC4, 21%). Tumor site, metastatic status, age, and in/outpatient status independently predicted class membership (p < .001). In adjusted pairwise comparisons, compared to LC1, the three other LCs were associated with higher risks of palliative treatment, death, and unscheduled admission (p ≤ .05). LC4 was associated with 1-year mortality and palliative treatment compared to LC2 and LC3 (p ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: We identified four health profiles that may help physicians select cancer treatments and geriatric interventions. Researchers may find these profiles useful for stratifying patients in clinical trials.

Effect of reminders mailed to general practitioners on colorectal cancer screening adherence: a cluster-randomized trial.

Reminders have been used in various settings, but failed to produce convincing evidence of benefits on patient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of sending general practitioners (GPs) printed reminders about CRC screening. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 144 GPs in the Val-de-Marne district (France), who provided care for any reason to 20 778 patients eligible for CRC screening between June 2010 and November 2011. Data were collected from the main statutory health-insurance programme and local cancer screening agency. GPs were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 proportion to the intervention or the control group. Every 4 months, intervention-group GPs received a computer-generated printed list of patients who had not performed scheduled faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening. The primary outcome was patient adherence to FOBT screening or exclusion from CRC screening for medical reasons. The screening adherence rate was 31.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.3-32.1] in the control group and 32.9% (95% CI 32.0-33.8) in the intervention group [crude relative risk, 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09), P<0.01]. This rate was not significantly different between groups by multilevel modelling accounting for clustering and confounding variables [adjusted relative risk, 1.07 (95% CI 0.95-1.20), P=0.27]. Computer-generated printed reminders sent to GPs did not significantly improve patient adherence to organized CRC screening by the FOBT.

Predictors of 1-Year Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of Elderly Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mortality prediction is crucial to select the optimal treatment in elderly cancer patients. Our objective was to identify cancer-related factors and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) findings associated with 1-year mortality in elderly inpatients and outpatients with cancer. METHODS: We prospectively included patients aged ≥70 years who had solid or hematologic malignancies and in whom the CGA was performed by geriatricians in two French teaching hospitals. We identified independent predictors of 1-year mortality after study inclusion, using multivariate Cox models stratified on inpatient/outpatient status. We built three multivariate Cox models, since strong correlations linked activities of daily living (ADL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), and timed get-up-and-go test (GUG) results; and since physicians' preferences for these three assessments vary. A sensitivity analysis was performed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Of the 993 patients (mean age, 80.2 years; 51.2% men), 58.2% were outpatients and 46% had metastatic disease. Colorectal cancer was the most common malignancy (21.4%). Mortality rates after 6 and 12 months were 30.1% and 41.2%, respectively. In all models, tumor site and metastatic status (p < .001), age >80 years (p < .05), higher number of severe comorbidities (p < .05), and malnutrition (p < .001) were associated with death independently from impaired ECOG-PS (p < .001), ADL (p < .001), and GUG (p < .001). The adverse effect of metastatic status differed significantly across tumor sites, being greatest for breast and prostate cancer (p < .001). Multiple imputation produced similar results. CONCLUSION: The predictors of 1-year mortality identified in our study may help physicians select the optimal cancer-treatment strategy in elderly patients.

Understanding barriers to organized breast cancer screening in France: women's perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge.

BACKGROUND: The participation rate in organized breast cancer screening in France is lower than recommended. Non-participants either use opportunistic screening or do not use either screening modality. OBJECTIVE: To assess any differences in perceptions, attitudes and knowledge related to breast cancer screening between users of opportunistic screening and non-users of any screening mammograms and to identify potential barriers to participation in organized screening. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted in May 2010 with 34 French non-participants in organized screening, 15 who used opportunistic screening (OpS group) and 19 who used no screening (NoS group). The guide used for both groups explored perceptions and attitudes related to health, cancer and screening; perceptions of femininity; and knowledge about breast cancer screening. Thematic content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Perceptions, attitudes and knowledge differed between the two groups. Women in the OpS group perceived a high susceptibility to breast cancer, visited their gynaecologist regularly, were unfamiliar with organized screening modalities and had doubts about its quality. NoS women had very high- or low-perceived susceptibility to breast cancer, knew about screening modalities, had doubts about its usefulness and expressed negative opinions of mammograms. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perceptions and attitudes related to breast cancer screening partially explain why some women choose opportunistic screening or no screening. General practitioners and gynaecologists are in a unique position to provide individually tailored preventative messages to improve participation in organized screening.