Decision Aids for Decision Making about Locally Advance Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is a subset of breast cancer with locoregional progression without distant metastasis. The multimodality treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal and targeted therapy if required) could significantly improve results in this specific group of patients. The complex and multiple options of treatment with similar mortality rates but different outcomes depending on the patient's desires, preferences and social environment require aid to facilitate the individual patient's decisions (e.g. Decision Aids (DAs) targeting patients considering primary or adjuvant treatment in LABC). In this context, DAs have been proven fundamental to help patients and clinicians share and agree on the best value option. The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing DAs related to these patients with LABC and identify current status and possible improvement areas (possible scarcity and heterogeneity of instruments, the status of their development, explanation of their purpose,…). No previous systematic reviews have been published on this topic. Following Prospero registration no: CRD42021286173, studies about LABC DAs were identified, without data or language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases in December 2021. Quality was assessed using Qualsyst criteria (range 0.0-1.0). The quality of the 17 selected studies ranged from 0.46 to 0.95. Of them, 14/17 (82%) were DAs about treatment, only one (6%) about diagnosis, and 2/17 (12%) about the employment of DAs. No screening or follow-up DAs were retrieved. Twelve (70.6%) DAs were online tools. They varied broadly regarding their characteristics and purposes. Most of the studies focused on developing and testing different DAs (5/17; 29.4%) and their impact (7/17; 41.2%). Only 4/17 (23.5%) analysed their implementation and cost. These instruments have proven to improve patient's knowledge and decision-making, decrease patient anxiety, and patients tend to undergo treatment. However, nowadays, there is still a need for further research and consensus on methodology to develop practical DAs.

Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review.

Breast cancer (BC) management care requires an increment in quality. An initiative to improve the BC quality care is registered, and quality indicators (QIs) are studied. We appraised the appearance of QIs and their standards systematically in Spain. A prospective systematic search (Prospero no: CRD42021228867) for clinical pathways and integrated breast cancer care processes was conducted through databases and the World Wide Web in February 2021. Duplicate data extraction was performed with 98% reviewer agreement. Seventy-four QIs (QI per document mean: 11; standard deviation: 10.59) were found in 15 documents. The Catalonian document had the highest number of QIs (n = 30). No QI appeared in all the documents. There were 9/74 QIs covering structure (12.16%), 53/74 covering process (71.62%), and 12/74 covering outcome (16.22%). A total of 22/66 (33.33%) process and outcome QIs did not set a minimum standard of care. QIs related to primary care, patient satisfaction, and shared decision making were deficient. Most of the documents established a BC QI standard for compliance, but the high variability hinders the comparison of outcomes. Establishing a consensus-based set of QIs needs urgent attention.

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes. METHODS: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement. RESULTS: There were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document. CONCLUSION: More than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.