Motivations of patients seeking supportive care for cancer from physicians prescribing homeopathic or conventional medicines: results of an observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The motivations of patients who consult a homeopathic (GP-Ho) or conventional (GP-CM) general practitioner for supportive care during cancer treatment have not been widely studied. We investigated the reasons why cancer patients consult a GP-Ho versus a GP-CM for supportive care and the GPs' motivations for their prescriptions. METHODS: This observational survey was carried out in France between October 2008 and October 2011. GPs across France were randomly selected and asked to recruit four cancer patients each. At inclusion, the sociodemographic and clinical (including psychological) characteristics and medical history of the patients were recorded by the GPs and the patients noted their quality of life (QoL) and anxiety/depression using the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) self-questionnaires. The main motivations of the patients regarding the type of GP consultation and the main reasons for the GPs' prescriptions were recorded. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty four patients were included in the analysis: 399 consulted a GP-CM (n = 112) and 245 a GP-Ho (n = 73). Patients consulting a GP-Ho were more often female [OR = 1.93; 95%CI: 1.11-3.35; p = 0.02], employed in a professional capacity [OR = 6.57; 95%CI: 1.96-21.99; p = 0.002], have a shorter time since cancer diagnosis [OR = 2.19; 95%CI: 1.24-3.87; p = 0.007], have received targeted anticancer therapy [OR = 3.70; 95%CI: 1.67-8.18; p = 0.001] and have a high QLQ-C30 score for constipation [OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 1.00-1.02; p = 0.001]. Patients mainly consulted a GP-Ho to receive overall care (73.5% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.024) and medicines to prevent anticancer treatment-related side-effects (63.7% vs. 41.4%; p < 0.0001). In contrast, patients consulted a GP-CM to receive psychological care (50.1% vs. 40.8%; p = 0.021) and more information regarding the oncologists' strategic decisions (p < 0.0001). There was a significantly greater prescription of psychotropic drugs by GP-CM (53.7% vs. 22.4%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients consulting a GP-Ho or GP-CM had different motivations for seeking supportive care. There was a significantly greater prescription of psychotropic drugs by GP-CM.

Multidisciplinarity and medical decision, impact for patients with cancer: sociological assessment of two tumour committees' organization.

PURPOSE: Medical practices in oncology are expected to be multidisciplinary, yet few articles studied how this may be concretely applied. In the present study, we evaluated the organization of two multidisciplinary committees, one for breast cancer and one for sarcoma, in a French Comprehensive Cancer Centre. METHODS: Both tumours were specifically chosen so as to emphasise substantial differences in relation with incidence, histological subtypes, management strategy, and scientific evidence. Between 2003 and 2004, 404 decision processes were observed, 210 for sarcoma (26 meetings) and 194 for breast cancer (10 meetings). The number of physicians who took part in the discussions and their medical specialties were systematically noted as well as the number of contradictory discussions, medical specialties represented in these contradictory discussions and the topics of contradiction. The last measured data was whether the final committee's decision was in conformity with the referent preferences or not. All these measures were related to the referent's medical speciality and working place, to the stage of the disease and to the disease management stage. RESULTS: Committees' specificities concerned their organization, referent's medical specialties, the number of participants in discussions and their medical specialties. Discussions in the sarcoma committee tended to be more multidisciplinary, involving more specialties. Initial strategy proposal for one patient was modified during the discussions for 86 patients out of 210 (41%) and for 62 out of 194 (32%) respectively for sarcoma and breast cancer. However, there was no significant difference in the rate of contradictory discussions between breast cancer and sarcoma committees (32% versus 41% respectively; P = 0.08). The rates of contradictory discussions were similar for localized cancers, local relapse and metastasis disease (37%, 41% and 34% respectively; P = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reports more than 30% of changes concerning strategy for patient with cancer due to multidisciplinary discussions. This indicates that, providing tumour committees are adapted to the pathologies' characteristics, they can promote a collective and multidisciplinary approach to oncology.

Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Comparison of clinical practice and cost of drugs in two cohorts of patients: 1994-1998 and 2003-2006.

Although new chemotherapeutic drugs for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been approved over the past decade, it is unclear whether this has changed the overall outcome of patients. This study assessed the clinical and economic impacts of these drugs. We retrospectively studied MBC patients receiving chemotherapy in our institution over two time periods, 1994-1998 and 2003-2006. Patient characteristics and outcomes, and treatment characteristics and costs (€, 2008) were compared. Three hundred and one patients were identified, 149 patients in the first cohort and 152 in second one. The median number of lines of chemotherapy was similar in the two cohorts (three lines). The median costs of chemotherapy per patient nearly doubled over time, from 6,272 € in the 1994-1998 cohort to 13,035 € in the 2003-2006 cohort (P < 0.001). No survival difference was observed between the two groups, with a 3-year survival rate estimated to 41% in the 1994-1998 cohort and 44% in the 2003-2006 cohort (P = 0.52). In multivariate analysis, prognostic factors associated with longer overall survival were single metastatic site (HR 0.48; P < 10⁻³), bone metastases (HR = 0.67; P = 0.007) and positive hormone receptors (HR 0.56; P = 0.0002). New chemotherapeutic agents induced a significant cost increase over time. The limited size and heterogeneity of our cohort do not allow any conclusion concerning their impact on survival.