Living with metastatic breast cancer (LIMBER): experiences, quality of life, gaps in information, care and support of patients in the UK.

PURPOSE: To determine the experiences, information, support needs and quality of life of women in the UK living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to provide content for educational materials. METHODS: An online survey, hosted for 3 months on a UK MBC charity website, comprised sections covering issues such as communication about MBC treatment and management, helpful and less helpful things that healthcare professionals, family and friends did or said and completion of the Patient Roles and Responsibilities Scale (PRRS). RESULTS: A total of 143 patients participated; 48/143(33%) presented de novo; 54/143(38%) had been living with MBC > 2 years. PRRS analysis revealed that MBC imposed a serious impact upon most respondents' own caring abilities and social lives. A majority 98/139 (71%) wished they had known more about MBC before their diagnosis; 63/134(47%) indicated that they still did not fully understand their illness; merely 78/139(56%) had access to a specialist nurse and only 69/135(51%) had been offered any additional support. Respondents reported little consideration given to their lifestyle/culture during consultations and inconsistent information, support services, continuity of care or access to clinical trials. They commented upon things health care professionals/friends and family did or said that were useful and cited other behaviours that were especially unhelpful. CONCLUSIONS: MBC exerted a deleterious impact upon patients' activities of daily living which were exacerbated in part by significant gaps in support, communication and information. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: LIMBER results are informing the content of educational materials currently being developed for patients' formal and informal carers.

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.

A structured review of quality of life in advanced and high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma shows the need for more studies and better measures.

Background: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) accounts for nearly a quarter of non-melanoma skin cancers. Studies reporting Quality of Life (QoL) in this group focus on early stage disease. A small proportion of cSCC patients have high-risk or advanced disease, with potentially significant QoL impacts, yet are largely overlooked. Aims: This structured review appraises measures and published QoL outcomes in this group. Materials & Methods: We conducted searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHLplus and PsycInfo in June 2020 (updated in October) to identify publications specifically reporting QoL outcomes in this cohort. Returns were reviewed against a strict set of eligibility criteria. Results: We identified seven publications for inclusion; three relating to high-risk cSCC, three to metastatic disease and one to unresectable disease. Publications were appraised for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only one fulfilled more than two of the five quality criteria. Studies employed a range of patient reported outcome measures to assess QoL, both generic and disease specific. Discussion: All studies with multiple time-points reported stable or improving QoL, however extrapolation of these findings to the cSCC population is not warranted due to study limitations including mixed populations, incomplete data sets or single measurements. We set out to review the QoL literature for high-risk and advanced cSCC and found a small and disparate body of evidence. Studies varied significantly in terms of study population, design and quality. While the identified studies suggested stable or improving QoL, we question the choice of measures used and highlight the need for further work in this area. Conclusion: While there are some published reports about quality of life for patients with early stage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, these impacts for the high-risk or advanced cohort are largely unexplored. We conducted a structured review of published measures and outcomes used in this cohort and found a demonstrable need for further, targeted, exploration of patient needs in this area.

Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians.

PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Eight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs' competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores. RESULTS: 65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38-6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72-9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82-8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37-3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27-12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs' self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001). CONCLUSION: These short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs' communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy.