Career stage and work setting create different barriers for evidence-based medicine.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Although many barriers to practising evidence-based medicine (EBM) are described, it remains poorly understood why clinicians do, and do not, incorporate high-quality evidence into their routine practice. To date, a comprehensive framework for the classification for barriers to practising EBM is lacking. This qualitative study explored the relationship between differences in career stage and work setting among doctors and their perceived barriers for practising EBM. We also explored an alternative classification of barriers. METHODS: Purposive participant sampling reflected three career stages in two different work settings: four registrars, four consultant anaesthetists and four senior anaesthetists from two departments of anaesthesiology, in an academic and a general hospital, in The Netherlands. Perceptions on practising EBM and its barriers were explored in semi-structured interviews. Using grounded theory approach, we build a framework for the classification of these barriers. RESULTS: In both departments, registrars and consultants demonstrated little sense of urgency to work on their EBM performance; registrars struggled with information overload and hierarchical dependence, and consultants practised confidence-based medicine. Senior doctors in both departments reported that combining clinical work with leadership tasks made them more reflective, and therefore more susceptible to the reasoning approach inherent within the current approach to EBM. They considered themselves willing and able to apply EBM, and were reported to act accordingly. Differences in setting that complicated practising EBM related to the general hospital. The absence of formal hierarchy among doctors resulted in a lack of medical consensus and an absence of integrated management teams hindered collaboration between doctors and non-medical managers. We identified 10 conditions that were conducive to the practice of EBM. CONCLUSIONS: Both career stage and work setting were associated with perceived barriers to practising EBM. We have included these in our theoretical framework for classification of these barriers.

The relationship between aromatase in primary breast tumors and response to treatment with aromatase inhibitors in advanced disease.

Aromatase inhibitors are proving to be more effective than tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. Estrogen concentrations in the breast are similar in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, and several fold higher than circulating levels in postmenopausal women. In order to investigate the importance of intratumoral aromatase in stimulating the proliferation of the tumor, we used immunocytochemistry to determine the extent of aromatase expression in relationship to the response of the patient to aromatase inhibitor treatment. The relationship between positive staining for aromatase in the primary tumor and response to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor was investigated in a retrospective study of 102 patients with advanced breast cancer. Immunohistochemical staining using a monoclonal antibody against aromatase was performed on paraffin embedded tumor tissue. Response was evaluated using UICC criteria. Nine out of 13 patients with objective response to treatment stained positive and 49 of 89 patients with stable or progressive disease stained positive. No significant relationship between positive staining and objective response to treatment could be found. When patients with 'clinical benefit' (i.e. objective response plus prolonged stable disease of at least 6 months) were considered, also no relationship could be found. Further analysis of subgroups with positive hormone receptors, treatment with newer generation aromatase inhibitors, single metastatic site, non-visceral metastases and previous treatment only with tamoxifen did not show any relationship. Tumor aromatase expression did not correlate with response of patients with advanced breast cancer to aromatase inhibitor treatment. Most patients had relapsed from other treatments before receiving an aromatase inhibitor. It seems likely that many of these patients had tumors that may have progressed to hormone independence at this stage of the disease. Research in patients who have received treatment with aromatase inhibitors in earlier stages of disease (first line and adjuvant treatment) may provide further information on the relationship between tumor aromatase, steroid receptors and response to inhibitor treatment.

The PLACORHEN study: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized radionuclide study with (186)Re-etidronate in hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Placebo Controlled Rhenium Study.

UNLABELLED: (186)Re-1,1-hydroxyethylidene diphosphonate (etidronate) can be used for the palliative treatment of metastatic bone pain. A randomized, placebo-controlled study using (186)Re-etidronate was conducted on end-stage prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone pain. METHODS: Pain relief was assessed using an electronic diary containing questions reflecting the multidimensional character of chronic pain. The diary was marked twice daily for a maximum of 14 wk (2 wk before and 12 wk after the injection). Pain response was determined using a specific decision rule in which pain intensity, medication index, and daily activities were the core determinants. A positive response day was defined as a day on which pain intensity was reduced > or = 25% compared with baseline values, while medication index and daily activities were at least constant, or on which pain intensity was reduced < 25% and medication index or daily activities improved > or = 25%, without worsening of the remaining factor. The total response (%) was defined as the number of positive response days divided by the number of days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 111 included patients, 79 were evaluable (43 (186)Re-etidronate, 36 placebo). Thirty-two patients were excluded from the analysis because of incomplete datasets. The total response of the patients treated with (186)Re-etidronate varied from 0% to 96% (mean, 27%, or 23/84 d). In the placebo group, the total response varied from 0% to 80% (mean, 13%, or 11/84 d; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05). The number of patients who requested radiotherapy was higher in the placebo group (67%) than in the (186)Re-etidronate group (44%) (relative risk, 1.51; Fisher's exact test, P = 0.069). CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial confirmed that, compared with placebo, (186)Re-etidronate resulted in a significantly longer pain response in the treatment of bone pain from metastasized prostate cancer.