The Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Elisabeth Hillebrand ◽  
Ulrike Söling ◽  
Norbert Marschner
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Breast cancer is still the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Once metastasized, breast cancer treatment primarily aims at reducing symptom burden, thereby trying to maintain and improve a patient´s quality of life (QoL), delaying disease progression, and prolonging survival. Curing the disease is not possible in the palliative setting. To better understand metastatic breast cancer patients, their symptoms and wishes, which are important for treatment-decision making and outcome, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of great importance, giving an impression of what really matters to and concerns a patient. Summary: Many advances have been made to implicate PROs in clinical trials, non-interventional studies, registries, and clinical routine care of metastatic breast cancer. For example, large phase III trials like PALOMA-3 (NCT01942135), MONALEESA-7 (NCT02278120), HER2CLIMB (NCT02614794), and KEYNOTE-119 (NCT02555657) trials implemented PROs in their trial design to assess the QoL of their trial patients. Also, non-interventional studies on metastatic breast cancer, like e.g., the NABUCCO study (IOM-02240), and prospective non-interventional, multicenter registries e.g., the tumor registry breast cancer (NCT01351584) or the breast cancer registry platform OPAL (NCT03417115), have implemented PROs to assess QoL during the anti-cancer treatment periods of the patients. Key Message: Using PROs in metastatic breast cancer can support shared treatment-decision making and management of symptoms, eventually leading to an improvement in QoL. Progressively, regulatory authorities take PROs into consideration for the approval of new drugs. Hence, the implication of PROs in cancer treatment, and especially in MBC, is of significant value.

Primary care provider-reported participation in breast cancer treatment decision making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Chandler McLeod ◽  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

78 Background: Surgical treatment decisions for early-stage breast cancer patients are complex and often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, with the increasing adoption of team-based cancer care models, it remains unknown to what extent primary care providers (PCPs) are participating in breast cancer treatment decisions and whether they feel they have enough knowledge to participate in these decisions effectively. Methods: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients who participated in iCanCare Study (Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries) were surveyed about their experiences caring for cancer patients (N = 519, 58% current response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed which surgery a patient should have, how comfortable they were with these discussions, whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making and their confidence in their ability to help with treatment decision making (5-item likert-type scales). The individual items were then categorized as somewhat/often/always vs. never/rarely for analyses. Results: In this preliminary sample, 62% of PCPs were not comfortable having a discussion about surgery options with a patient newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 41% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision-making, and 34% were not confident in the ability to help with treatment decision-making. One third (32%) of PCPs reported discussing surgical treatment options with their newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, but 22% of these PCPs also reported that they were not comfortable having these discussions and 16% reported they did not have necessary knowledge to participate in decision-making. Conclusions: A minority of PCPs participate in breast cancer treatment decision-making and there are notable gaps in their self-reported knowledge about decision-making and confidence in their ability to help with these decisions. Efforts to increase PCP knowledge about the specifics of cancer treatments may be warranted, but further research is needed to assess the impact of PCP participation on treatment decision-making outcomes.

Treatment decision-making and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 97-97
Author(s):  
Clara Wan ◽  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Stacey A. Ingram ◽  
Valerie Lawhon ◽  
Jennifer Young Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Demographic ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

97 Background: Shared decision-making (SDM), a process where patients partner with their physician to incorporate personal preferences into treatment decisions, is a tenet of high-value healthcare. It is unknown if high-value care associated with SDM manifests in the form of decreased out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, this study analyzes the relationship between patient preference for SDM and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women age ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama between 2017 and 2019. SDM preference and financial toxicity were measured using the Control Preferences Scale and the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (11-item scale from 0-44, with lower scores indicating worse FT), respectively. Patient demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V. Differences in financial toxicity by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist. Results: In 79 women with MBC, 41% preferred SDM, 33% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 22% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (48% vs. 40%; V = .15), higher income (52% vs. 44%; V = .09), and privately insured (47% vs. 41%; V = .11). Overall median COST score was 23 (interquartile range 16-30), which varied modestly by SDM preference. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, similar financial toxicity levels were found in patients who preferred SDM (COST 22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19-25), patient-driven decision making (COST 22, 95% CI 18-26), and provider-driven decision making (COST 24, 95% CI 20-27). Conclusions: Similar levels of financial toxicity were found in patients with differing decision–making preferences regarding their MBC treatment, which may be secondary to lack of discussions about cost. Further research is needed to determine if and how financial toxicity is being identified or included within decision-making.

scholarly journals Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

JMIR Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas D Hartkopf ◽  
Joachim Graf ◽  
Elisabeth Simoes ◽  
Lucia Keilmann ◽  
Nina Sickenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document