Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years. METHODS: The BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05-0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06-0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06-0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03-0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [-0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference -1·10 [95% CI -1·79 to -0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Tumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society.

Radiation therapy quality indicators for invasive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer has evolved considerably over the past two decades. A concise list of optimal care indexes is lacking. The purpose of this project was to generate a suite of quality of care indicators for breast cancer RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used including a comprehensive literature and guideline review (1995-2015), an initial review of potential quality indicators (QIs) by a steering committee, a survey of Canadian Radiation Oncologists, and a face-to-face consensus development meeting with breast cancer experts to develop a list of breast RT quality indicators. RESULTS: The literature review identified 163 potential QIs, which was reduced to 73 by the steering committee. After all rounds of the Delphi process the final suite included 33 QIs. Of these, 28 (85%) received at least 80% acceptance from the Radiation Oncologists who participated in the final online survey. CONCLUSIONS: A suite of measureable RT quality indicators to be considered during management of invasive breast cancer was developed. These indicators could be used to assess the quality and consistency of breast cancer RT practices.

Estimating the Risks of Breast Cancer Radiotherapy: Evidence From Modern Radiation Doses to the Lungs and Heart and From Previous Randomized Trials.

Purpose Radiotherapy reduces the absolute risk of breast cancer mortality by a few percentage points in suitable women but can cause a second cancer or heart disease decades later. We estimated the absolute long-term risks of modern breast cancer radiotherapy. Methods First, a systematic literature review was performed of lung and heart doses in breast cancer regimens published during 2010 to 2015. Second, individual patient data meta-analyses of 40,781 women randomly assigned to breast cancer radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy in 75 trials yielded rate ratios (RRs) for second primary cancers and cause-specific mortality and excess RRs (ERRs) per Gy for incident lung cancer and cardiac mortality. Smoking status was unavailable. Third, the lung or heart ERRs per Gy in the trials and the 2010 to 2015 doses were combined and applied to current smoker and nonsmoker lung cancer and cardiac mortality rates in population-based data. Results Average doses from 647 regimens published during 2010 to 2015 were 5.7 Gy for whole lung and 4.4 Gy for whole heart. The median year of irradiation was 2010 (interquartile range [IQR], 2008 to 2011). Meta-analyses yielded lung cancer incidence ≥ 10 years after radiotherapy RR of 2.10 (95% CI, 1.48 to 2.98; P < .001) on the basis of 134 cancers, indicating 0.11 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.20) ERR per Gy whole-lung dose. For cardiac mortality, RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.46; P < .001) on the basis of 1,253 cardiac deaths. Detailed analyses indicated 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.06) ERR per Gy whole-heart dose. Estimated absolute risks from modern radiotherapy were as follows: lung cancer, approximately 4% for long-term continuing smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers; and cardiac mortality, approximately 1% for smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers. Conclusion For long-term smokers, the absolute risks of modern radiotherapy may outweigh the benefits, yet for most nonsmokers (and ex-smokers), the benefits of radiotherapy far outweigh the risks. Hence, smoking can determine the net effect of radiotherapy on mortality, but smoking cessation substantially reduces radiotherapy risk.

Claudin-Low Breast Cancer; Clinical & Pathological Characteristics.

Claudin-low breast cancer is a molecular type of breast cancer originally identified by gene expression profiling and reportedly associated with poor survival. Claudin-low tumors have been recognised to preferentially display a triple-negative phenotype, however only a minority of triple-negative breast cancers are claudin-low. We sought to identify an immunohistochemical profile for claudin-low tumors that could facilitate their identification in formalin fixed paraffin embedded tumor material. First, an in silico collection of ~1600 human breast cancer expression profiles was assembled and all claudin-low tumors identified. Second, genes differentially expressed between claudin-low tumors and all other molecular subtypes of breast cancer were identified. Third, a number of these top differentially expressed genes were tested using immunohistochemistry for expression in a diverse panel of breast cancer cell lines to determine their specificity for claudin-low tumors. Finally, the immunohistochemical panel found to be most characteristic of claudin-low tumors was examined in a cohort of 942 formalin fixed paraffin embedded human breast cancers with >10 years clinical follow-up to evaluate the clinico-pathologic and survival characteristics of this tumor subtype. Using this approach we determined that claudin-low breast cancer is typically negative for ER, PR, HER2, claudin 3, claudin 4, claudin 7 and E-cadherin. Claudin-low tumors identified with this immunohistochemical panel, were associated with young age of onset, higher tumor grade, larger tumor size, extensive lymphocytic infiltrate and a circumscribed tumor margin. Patients with claudin-low tumors had a worse overall survival when compared to patients with luminal A type breast cancer. Interestingly, claudin-low tumors were associated with a low local recurrence rate following breast conserving therapy. In conclusion, a limited panel of antibodies can facilitate the identification of claudin-low tumors. Furthermore, claudin-low tumors identified in this manner display similar clinical, pathologic and survival characteristics to claudin-low tumors identified from fresh frozen tumor material using gene expression profiling.

The benefit of deep inspiration breath hold: evaluating cardiac radiation exposure in patients after mastectomy and after breast-conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the reduction of cardiac radiation dose and volume with deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) technique compared to free breathing (FB) in patients with left-sided breast cancer. The study also aims to evaluate whether the benefits of DIBH vary in patients who had whole breast radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and those who had chest wall RT post-mastectomy (M). METHODS: FB and DIBH plans were generated for 15 consecutive post-BCS patients and 17 post-M patients who underwent RT with DIBH using varian real-time position management (RPM) system. Cardiac shields were used in all post-BCS plans, provided that clinical treatment volume coverage was not compromised, while chest wall coverage took priority in post-M plans. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions for the whole breast or the chest wall. Parameters of interest were cardiac V5, mean LAD dose, maximum LAD dose, and mean heart dose. The impact of DIBH was compared in post-BCS and post-M patients using paired t tests. To gauge clinically meaningful outcome, the proportion of patients with V5 < 5 % and mean cardiac dose <2 Gy were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: DIBH decreased V5 by an absolute 4.5 % (2.3 vs. 6.8 %; p < 0.0001) in post-M group, and by an absolute 2.4 % (1.3 vs. 3.7 %; p = 0.0028) in post-BCS group. DIBH decreased the mean heart dose by 107.0 cGy (127.4 vs. 234.4 cGy; p = 0.0002) in post-M group, and by 58.9 cGy (82.2 vs. 141.1 cGy; p = 0.0012) in post-BCS group. DIBH decreased mean LAD by 1201.6 cGy (670 vs. 1872.5 cGy; p = 0.0006) in post-M group, and by 799.0 cGy (425.3 vs. 1224.3 cGy; p = 0.0003) in post-BCS group. DIBH also decreased max LAD dose by 1244.3 cGy (2776.0 vs. 4020.3 cGy; p = 0.0014) in post-M group, and by 1856.3 cGy (1898.7 vs. 3754.9 cGy; p = 0.0005) in post-BCS group. In post-BCS group, cardiac V5 < 5 % was achieved in 10/15 (67 %) FB patients, and in 15/15 (100 %) DIBH patients (p = 0.002), and mean heart dose <2 Gy was achieved in 12/15 (80 %) FB patients and in 15/15 (100 %) DIBH patients (p < 0.001). This compares with post-M group, in which V5 < 5 % was achieved in 6/17 (35 %) FB patients and in 16/17 (94 %) DIBH patients (p = 0.05), and mean heart dose <2 Gy was achieved in 7/17 FB (41 %) an 16/17 DIBH patients (94 %) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that there is considerable reduction in cardiac exposure in most patients with DIBH compared to FB, although less reduction is observed in the post-BCS patients. The use of cardiac shields and collimators/gantry adjustments, more readily applicable for post-BCS cases, may limit the additional benefits of DIBH. In an environment where DIBH availability is limited, the result of this study supports the preferential use of DIBH in post-M patients over post-BCS patients.

Extending Aromatase-Inhibitor Adjuvant Therapy to 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years as up-front monotherapy or after tamoxifen therapy is the treatment of choice for hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Extending treatment with an aromatase inhibitor to 10 years may further reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of the extended use of letrozole for an additional 5 years. Our primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: We enrolled 1918 women. After a median follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 165 events involving disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (67 with letrozole and 98 with placebo) and 200 deaths (100 in each group). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 96) with letrozole and 91% (95% CI; 89 to 93) with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer, 0.66; P=0.01 by a two-sided log-rank test stratified according to nodal status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, the interval from the last dose of aromatase-inhibitor therapy, and the duration of treatment with tamoxifen). The rate of 5-year overall survival was 93% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with letrozole and 94% (95% CI, 92 to 95) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.97; P=0.83). The annual incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer in the letrozole group was 0.21% (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.32), and the rate in the placebo group was 0.49% (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67) (hazard ratio, 0.42; P=0.007). Bone-related toxic effects occurred more frequently among patients receiving letrozole than among those receiving placebo, including a higher incidence of bone pain, bone fractures, and new-onset osteoporosis. No significant differences between letrozole and placebo were observed in scores on most subscales measuring quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The extension of treatment with an adjuvant aromatase inhibitor to 10 years resulted in significantly higher rates of disease-free survival and a lower incidence of contralateral breast cancer than those with placebo, but the rate of overall survival was not higher with the aromatase inhibitor than with placebo. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00003140 and NCT00754845.).

Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons' views.

BACKGROUND: For early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons' views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice. METHODS: Purposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes. RESULTS: Twenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n = 7, 32%) or community (n = 15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

Treatment decision-making in the medical encounter: comparing the attitudes of French surgeons and their patients in breast cancer care.

OBJECTIVES: To explore attitudes of French surgeons and their patients towards treatment decision-making (TDM) in the medical encounter. METHODS: Surgeons involved in early stage breast cancer and their patients treated in a French cancer care network received a cross-sectional survey questionnaire containing examples of four different approaches to TDM: paternalistic, "some sharing", informed TDM and, shared TDM. RESULTS: Surgeons' interaction styles were clearly distributed among paternalistic, shared and mixed. The paternalistic approach seemed to be associated with private rather than public practice and with less professional experience. Patients reported a rather low level of participation in TDM, varying by socio-demographic characteristics. One third of patients were dissatisfied with the way their treatment decision had been made. CONCLUSION: Most surgeons reported adopting the "some sharing" approach. However, one patient out of three reported that they would have liked to participate more in the TDM process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Surgeons need to ask patients what their preferences for involvement in TDM are and then think about ways to accommodate both their own and patients' preferences regarding the TDM process to be used in each encounter. In addition, decision aids could be offered to surgeons to help them discuss treatment options with their patients.

Randomized trial of decongestive lymphatic therapy for the treatment of lymphedema in women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Because of its morbidity and chronicity, arm lymphedema remains a concerning complication of breast cancer treatment. Although massage-based decongestive therapy is often recommended, randomized trials have not consistently demonstrated benefit over more conservative measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women previously treated for breast cancer with lymphedema were enrolled from six institutions. Volumes were calculated from circumference measurements. Patients with a minimum of 10% volume difference between their arms were randomly assigned to either compression garments (control) or daily manual lymphatic drainage and bandaging followed by compression garments (experimental). The primary outcome was percent reduction in excess arm volume from baseline to 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 103 women were randomly assigned, and 95 were evaluable. Mean reduction of excess arm volume was 29.0% in the experimental group and 22.6% in the control group (difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 20.5%; P = .34). Absolute volume loss was 250 mL and 143 mL in the experimental and control groups, respectively (difference, 107 mL; 95% CI, 13 to 203 mL; P = .03). There was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients losing 50% or greater excess arm volume. Quality of life (Short Form-36 Health Survey) and arm function were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial was unable to demonstrate a significant improvement in lymphedema with decongestive therapy compared with a more conservative approach. The failure to detect a difference may have been a result of the relatively small size of our trial.

Development of patients' decision aid for older women with stage I breast cancer considering radiotherapy after lumpectomy.

PURPOSE: To develop a patient decision aid (PtDA) for older women with Stage I, pathologically node negative, estrogen receptor-positive progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer who are considering adjuvant radiotherapy after lumpectomy and to examine its impact on patients' decision making. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A PtDA was developed and evaluated in three steps according to the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: (1) needs assessment (n = 16); (2) Pilot I to examine PtDA acceptability (n = 12); and (3) Pilot II, a pretest posttest (n = 38) with older women with estrogen receptor-positive progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer after lumpectomy who were receiving adjuvant radiation therapy. Measures included patients' satisfaction with the PtDA, self-reported decisional conflict, level of distress, treatment-related knowledge, and choice predisposition. RESULTS: The PtDA is a booklet that details each adjuvant treatment option's benefits, risks, and side effects tailored to the patient's clinical profile; includes a values clarification exercise; and includes steps to guide patients towards their decision. On the basis of qualitative comments and satisfaction ratings, all women thought that the PtDA was helpful and informative. In comparison with their baseline scores, patients had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) reduction in decisional conflict (adjusted mean difference [AMD], -7.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.50 to 12.59); increased clarity of the benefits and risks (AMD, -10.86; CI, -20.33 to 21.49); and improved general treatment knowledge (AMD, 8.99; CI, 2.88-10.28) after using the PtDA. General trends were also reported in the patients' choice predisposition scores that suggested potential differences in treatment decision after PtDA use. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that this PtDA may be a helpful educational tool for this group of women. The quality of care for older breast cancer patients may be enhanced by the use of a tailored PtDA to help patients be better informed about their treatment options.

Three-year outcomes of a Canadian multicenter study of accelerated partial breast irradiation using conformal radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To report 3-year toxicity, cosmesis, and efficacy of a multicenter study of external beam, accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between March 2005 and August 2006, 127 women aged ≥40 years with ductal carcinoma in situ or node-negative invasive breast cancer ≤3 cm in diameter, treated with breast-conserving surgery achieving negative margins, were accrued to a prospective study involving five Canadian cancer centers. Women meeting predefined dose constraints were treated with APBI using 3 to 5 photon beams, delivering 35 to 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions, twice a day, over 1 week. Patients were assessed for treatment-related toxicities, cosmesis, and efficacy before APBI and at specified time points for as long as 3 years after APBI. RESULTS: 104 women had planning computed tomography scans showing visible seromas, met dosimetric constraints, and were treated with APBI to doses of 35 Gy (n=9), 36 Gy (n=33), or 38.5 Gy (n=62). Eighty-seven patients were evaluated with minimum 3-year follow-up after APBI. Radiation dermatitis, breast edema, breast induration, and fatigue decreased from baseline levels or stabilized by the 3-year follow-up. Hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, breast pain, and telangiectasia slightly increased from baseline levels. Most toxicities at 3 years were Grade 1. Only 1 patient had a Grade 3 toxicity with telangiectasia in a skin fold inside the 95% isodose. Cosmesis was good to excellent in 86% (89/104) of women at baseline and 82% (70/85) at 3 years. The 3-year disease-free survival was 97%, with only one local recurrence that occurred in a different quadrant away from the treated site and two distant recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, toxicity and cosmesis were acceptable, and local control and disease-free survival were excellent, supporting continued accrual to randomized APBI trials.

Altered fractionation: rationale and justification for whole and partial breast hypofractionated radiotherapy.

Over the last 2 decades, we have seen major advances in the application of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. Two important contributions are the use of whole-breast hypofractionation and accelerated partial-breast irradiation. Three large randomized trials comparing whole-breast hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation for early breast cancer have shown similar rates of local recurrence and morbidity. As a result, whole-breast hypofractionation is now an option for selected patients after breast-conserving surgery. The delivery of accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) has been studied using techniques of multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy, balloon-based brachytherapy, external-beam radiotherapy, and intraoperative radiotherapy. Multiple single and multi-institutional data have been published indicating good long-term results with APBI (in highly selected, low-risk patients) in terms of tumor control and toxicity. However, the long-term results of large, phase III trials comparing APBI with whole-breast irradiation are still pending.

Who is responsible? The role of family physicians in the provision of supportive cancer care.

PURPOSE: Patients living with cancer identify family physicians (FPs; ie, primary care physicians) as a preferred resource for supportive cancer care (SCC), either through direct provision or referral. However, little research exists on the specific role FPs play in addressing these needs. METHODS: A mailed survey was sent to all FPs in a health care region in Ontario, Canada, to determine their current and preferred roles in the specific provision of SCC to patients with cancer who have been newly diagnosed or are at the end of life. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 84 (64%) of 183 eligible FPs. Most practitioners reported providing for their patients' various SCC needs. However, clear gaps were demonstrated in psychosocial and nutritional counseling and in providing information about SCC services. FPs were satisfied with their current role reported in SCC coordination, although the type of role varied; FPs who were asked about their end-of-life patients tended to see themselves as part of coordinating teams, whereas FPs asked about their recently diagnosed patients were more likely to defer this responsibly to a third party. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in the provision of psychosocial and informational care to patients with cancer that may result in unmet needs. In general, FPs do not see themselves as primarily responsible for coordinating patients' SCC and do not wish to assume this role. Accordingly, models that involve FPs as team members in SCC coordination are more feasible for reducing patient need.

Evaluating health-related quality of life and priority health problems in patients with prostate cancer: a strategy for defining the role of the advanced practice nurse.

A framework for the introduction and evaluation of APN roles emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to role development based on the assessment of patient health needs. This study determined the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with prostate cancer. The most frequent and severe patient health problems and their perceptions of priority health problems were identified and compared across five patient groups as a strategy to inform the supportive care role of the advanced oncology nurse for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study found that the majority of men with early stage and advanced hormone sensitive prostate cancer can expect to enjoy good quality of life for several years following diagnosis. These two patient groups have common priority needs for improving their health related to sexual function, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, and physical activity. Both groups may benefit from an advanced practice nursing (APN) role that can provide episodic supportive care for health problems occurring at different treatment stages. Conversely, it was found that men with advanced hormone refractory prostate cancer experience significantly poorer HRQL and have multiple severe health problems. These patients also have different priority needs including problems related to pain, fatigue, and decreased physical activity. Because of this, the focus of supportive care programs and interventions in advanced prostate cancer will differ for those with hormone refractory disease. They may benefit more from an APN role that can provide ongoing rather than episodic supportive care to assess and manage the multiple, new, and worsening health problems associated with progressive disease.

Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi).

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development, validation and inter-rater reliability of an instrument to measure the quality of patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. SETTING: There has been increasing use of decision support technologies--adjuncts to the discussions clinicians have with patients about difficult decisions. A global interest in developing these interventions exists among both for-profit and not-for-profit organisations. It is therefore essential to have internationally accepted standards to assess the quality of their development, process, content, potential bias and method of field testing and evaluation. METHODS: Scale development study, involving construct, item and scale development, validation and reliability testing. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five researcher-members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration worked together to develop the instrument (IPDASi). In the fourth Stage (reliability study), eight raters assessed thirty randomly selected decision support technologies. RESULTS: IPDASi measures quality in 10 dimensions, using 47 items, and provides an overall quality score (scaled from 0 to 100) for each intervention. Overall IPDASi scores ranged from 33 to 82 across the decision support technologies sampled (n = 30), enabling discrimination. The inter-rater intraclass correlation for the overall quality score was 0.80. Correlations of dimension scores with the overall score were all positive (0.31 to 0.68). Cronbach's alpha values for the 8 raters ranged from 0.72 to 0.93. Cronbach's alphas based on the dimension means ranged from 0.50 to 0.81, indicating that the dimensions, although well correlated, measure different aspects of decision support technology quality. A short version (19 items) was also developed that had very similar mean scores to IPDASi and high correlation between short score and overall score 0.87 (CI 0.79 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that IPDASi has the ability to assess the quality of decision support technologies. The existing IPDASi provides an assessment of the quality of a DST's components and will be used as a tool to provide formative advice to DSTs developers and summative assessments for those who want to compare their tools against an existing benchmark.

Coordination of palliative cancer care in the community: "unfinished business".

GOAL: This study assessed the degree to which services in south-central Ontario, Canada, were coordinated to meet the supportive care needs of palliative cancer patients and their families. PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD: Programs within the region that were identified as providing supportive care to palliative cancer patients and their families were eligible to participate in the study. Program administrators participated in a semi-structured interview and direct-care providers completed a survey instrument. MAIN RESULTS: Administrators from 37 (97%) of 38 eligible programs and 109 direct-care providers representing 26 (70%) programs participated in the study. Most administrator and direct-care respondents felt that existing services in the community were responsive to palliative care patients' individual needs. However, at a system level, most respondents in both groups felt that required services were not available and that resources were inadequate. The most frequently reported unmet supportive care need identified by both respondent groups was psychological/social support. Most administrator (69%) and direct-care (64%) respondents felt that palliative care services were not available when needed. The majority of administrator and direct-care respondents were satisfied with the exchange of patient information within and between programs, although direct-care staff identified a deficit in information transferred on palliative care patients' social/psychological status. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the value of a theory-based approach to evaluate the coordination of palliative cancer care services. The findings revealed that service programs faced significant challenges in their efforts to provide coordinated care.

Implementing patient decision support tools: moving beyond academia?

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the feasibility of implementing three decision support tools (DSTs) for people with rectal cancer within the surgical consultation. METHODS: Twenty colorectal surgeons participated in a focus group or individual interviews. Colorectal surgeons were also asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: All surgeons responded encouragingly to the concept of DSTs. However, for every positive statement an accompanying caveat was made and these were either a criticism of each tool or a barrier to their implementation. Surgeons stated DSTs should be used by patients and surgeons together (80%). The majority (70-75%) thought each tool was 'useful' or 'extremely useful'. However, there were strong views that in their current form the DSTs would not feasible to be used within the surgical consultation. Time restraints, personal and clinical characteristics of the patient, the content of each tool, the potential negative impact on the doctor-patient relationship were noted as real barriers to their implementation. CONCLUSION: Surgeons have identified a number of barriers that may limit implementation of DSTs into routine clinical practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Feasibility and implementation studies have the potential to provide important information to help guide development, evaluation and implementation of DSTs.

The statutory duty of physicians to inform patients versus unmet patients' information needs: the case of breast cancer in France.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore empirically the extent to which early stage breast cancer patients in France, wish to be informed about their disease and treatments and (2) in view of the statutory duty of physicians to inform patients, to explore, from the patients' point of view, the type of information given by physicians and whether it meets their information needs. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional survey questionnaire using standardized questions was administered by mail to newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and evaluated their relationships with the different physicians involved in their treatment at different points in time. Focus was placed on the relationship between surgeons and patients. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-eight patients completed the questionnaire on their relationship with their surgeon. Patients' reported information needs are considerable, though significantly different depending on the item. Patients report that surgeons do not fully respond to their needs. Even though physicians are legally required to provide information to their patients, in routine practice they seem to favour providing information about disease and treatment side effects over treatment consequences, even though patients express a need for information on these latter items. CONCLUSION: More research is needed on the development, use and outcomes of the various strategies and interventions designed to facilitate and improve information transfer in the physician-patient encounter in France.

Association of phosphorylated epidermal growth factor receptor with survival in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its downstream effector kinases are thought to have important roles in lung cancer cell proliferation and response to treatment. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing high-dose radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy, we examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) the tumor levels of EGFR and phosphorylated/ activated-EGFR (P-EGFR), P-Erk, P-Akt, P-Stat3, and the cell cycle marker Ki67. We examined the relationships among marker expression, at the plasma membrane (M), cytoplasm (C) and nucleus, as well as the radiologic tumor response, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Fifty patients were recruited in this study. Their median survival was 18.3 months. No correlation was detected between total EGFR and P-EGFR levels in any subcellular compartment. M P-EGFR correlated positively with C P-Akt (p = 0.01). C P-Erk correlated negatively with radiologic response (p = 0.022), and on univariate regression analysis, this approached significance (p = 0.059). M and C P-EGFR correlated negatively with OS (p = 0.020), and on univariate analysis higher M P-EGFR predicted for poor OS (p = 0.001). Patients with high M P-EGFR levels had median survival of 7.8 months versus 17.7 months for patients with low M P-EGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support a role of activated M P-EGFR, (but not total EGFR), as a predictor of OS in locally advanced-NSCLC. It is suggested that detailed evaluation of the subcellular distribution and activation state of EGFR and its downstream effectors is required to unravel the predictive value of these markers in NSCLC.

Providing supportive care to cancer patients: a study on inter-organizational relationships.

BACKGROUND: Supportive cancer care (SCC) has historically been provided by organizations that work independently and possess limited inter-organizational coordination. Despite the recognition that SCC services must be better coordinated, little research has been done to examine inter-organizational relationships that would enable this goal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe relationships among programs that support those affected by cancer. Through this description the study objective was to identify the optimal approach to coordinating SCC in the community. METHODS: Senior administrators in programs that provided care to persons and their families living with or affected by cancer participated in a personal interview. SETTING: South-central Ontario, Canada. STUDY POPULATION: administrators from 43 (97%) eligible programs consented to participate in the study. RESULTS: Network analysis revealed a diffuse system where centralization was greater in operational than administrative activities. A greater number of provider cliques were present at the operational level than the administrative level. Respondents identified several priorities to improve the coordination of cancer care in the community including: improving standards of care; establishing a regional coordinating body; increasing resources; and improving communication between programs. CONCLUSION: Our results point to the importance of developing a better understanding on the types of relationships that exist among service programs if effective integrated models of care are to be developed.