Identification of subgroups of early breast cancer patients at high risk of nonadherence to adjuvant hormone therapy: results of an Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (HT) is suboptimal among breast cancer patients. A high rate of nonadherence might explain differences in survival between clinical trial and clinical practice. Tailored interventions aimed at improving adherence can only be implemented if subgroups of patients at higher risk of poor adherence are identified. Because no data are available for Italy, we undertook a large survey on adherence among women taking adjuvant HT for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from 10 cancer clinics in central Italy. All patients taking HT for at least 1 year were invited, during one of their follow-up visit, to fill a confidential questionnaire. The association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants with adherence was assessed using logistic regression. The RECPAM method was used to evaluate interactions among variables and to identify subgroups of patients at different risk of nonadherence. RESULTS: A total of 939 patients joined the study and 18.6% of them were classified as nonadherers. Among possible predictors, only age, working status, and switching from tamoxifen to an aromatase inhibitor were predictive of nonadherence in multivariate analysis. RECPAM analysis led to the identification of 4 classes of patients with a different likelihood of nonadherence to therapy, the lowest being observed in retired women with a low level of education, the highest in the group of unmarried, employed women, or housewives. CONCLUSION: The identification of these subgroups of "real life" patients with a high prevalence of nonadherers might be functional in designing intervention studies aimed at improving adherence.

Breast cancer "tailored follow-up" in Italian oncology units: a web-based survey.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment are still a controversial issue. Aim of this study was to investigate, through a web-based survey, surveillance methodologies selected by Italian oncologists in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Referents of Italian medical oncology units were invited to participate to the study via e-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. Participants were asked how, in their institution, exams of disease staging and follow-up are planned in asymptomatic women and if surveillance continues beyond the 5th year. RESULTS: Between February and May 2013, 125 out of 233 (53.6%) invited referents of Italian medical oncology units agreed to participate in the survey. Ninety-seven (77.6%) referents state that modalities of breast cancer follow-up are planned according to the risk of disease progression at diagnosis and only 12 (9.6%) oncology units apply the minimal follow-up procedures according to international guidelines. Minimal follow-up is never applied in high risk asymptomatic women. Ninety-eight (78.4%) oncology units continue follow-up in all patients beyond 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that 90.4% of participating Italian oncology units declare they do not apply the minimal breast cancer follow-up procedures after primary treatment in asymptomatic women, as suggested by national and international guidelines. Interestingly, about 80.0% of interviewed referents performs the so called "tailored follow-up", high intensity for high risk, low intensity for low risk patients. There is an urgent need of randomized clinical trials able to determine the effectiveness of risk-based follow-up modalities, their ideal frequency and persistence in time.

Developing a decision-making model based on an interdisciplinary oncological care group for the management of colorectal cancer.

AIM: To report our experience on implementation and preliminary results of a decision-making model based on the recommendations of an Interdisciplinary Oncological Care Group developed for the management of colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The multidisciplinary team identified a reference guideline using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) tool based on a sequential assessment of the guideline quality. Thereafter, internal guidelines with diagnostic and therapeutic management for early, locally advanced and metastatic colonic and rectal cancer were drafted; organizational aspects, responsibility matrices, protocol actions for each area of specialty involved and indicators for performing audits were also defined. RESULTS: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK guideline was the reference for drafting the internal guideline document; from February to November 2013, 125 patients with colorectal cancer were discussed by and taken under the care of the Interdisciplinary Oncological Care Group. The first audit performed in December 2013 revealed optimal adherence to the internal guideline, mainly in terms of uniformity and accuracy of perioperative staging, coordination and timing of multi-modal therapies. To date, all patients under observation are within the diagnostic and therapeutic course, no patient came out from the multidisciplinary "path" and only in 14% of cases have the first recommendations proposed been changed. The selected indicators appear effective and reliable, while at the moment, it is not yet possible to assess the impact of the multidisciplinary team on clinical outcome. CONCLUSION: Although having a short observation period, our model seems capable of determining optimal uniformity of diagnostic and therapeutic management, to a high degree of patient satisfaction. A longer observation period is necessary in order to confirm these observations and for assessing the impact on clinical outcome.