The balance of clinician and patient input into treatment decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer

Factors influencing older women's decision-making related to treatment of operable breast cancer: A qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

There is variation in practice in the treatment of older women with breast cancer. International guidelines highlight the importance of patient autonomy in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study is to identify factors which influence decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer, which will enable us to further understand how to support these patients.

METHODS

Systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines was performed to identify factors which influence treatment decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer. Medline, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5840 results; 13 articles met the inclusion criteria and reported on a total of 1118 women. Thematic analysis identified three key themes in which decision-making factors could be categorised. These were healthcare-related factors, patient-related factors and impact of treatment. Healthcare-related factors included communication with clinicians and provision of information. Patient-related factors were age, pre-existing knowledge, preconceptions of breast cancer and treatment, decision-making style and co-morbidities. The impact of treatment considerations included body image and effect on quality of life. Decision-making style was frequently reported; older women did not demonstrate one preferred style.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings have highlighted the complex interplay of factors which influence how older women make breast cancer treatment-decisions. Clinicians should have an awareness of the factors highlighted to maximise their ability to provide support and personalised care to older women with breast cancer whilst treatment decisions are made.

Shared decision-making with older adults with cancer: Adaptation of a model through literature review and expert opinion

OBJECTIVE

To provide a literature overview of characteristics of Shared Decision Making (SDM) with specific importance to the older adult population with cancer and to tailor an existing model of SDM in patients with cancer to the needs of older adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies described factors influencing SDM concerning cancer treatment with adults aged 65 years or above, with any type of cancer. We included qualitative or mixed-methods studies. Themes were identified and discussed in an expert panel, including a patient-representative, until consensus was reached on an adjusted model.

RESULTS

Overall 29 studies were included and nine themes were identified from the literature. The themes related to the importance of goal setting, need for tailored information provision, the role of significant others, uncertainty of evidence, the importance of time during and outside of consultations, the possible ill-informed preconceptions that health care professionals (HCPs) might have about older adults and the specific competencies they need to engage in the SDM process with older adults. No new themes emerged from discussion with expert panel. This study presents a visual model of SDM with older patients with cancer based on the identified themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model shows key elements that are specific to SDM with older adults. Further research needs to focus on how to educate HCPs on the competencies needed to engage in SDM with older patients, and how to implement the model into everyday practice.

Is there evidence of age bias in breast cancer health care professionals' treatment of older patients?

OBJECTIVES

Despite NICE (2009; 2018) guidelines to treat breast cancer patients 'irrespective of age', older women experience differential treatment and worse outcomes beyond that which can be explained by patient health or patient choice. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and perhaps perpetuating disparities across society, including in healthcare. Yet age bias has rarely been considered as an explanatory factor in poorer outcomes for older breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This mixed methods study explored age bias amongst breast cancer HCPs through four components: 1) An implicit associations test (31 HCPs) 2) A treatment recommendations questionnaire (46 HCPs). 3) An attitudes about older patients questionnaire (31 HCPs). 4) A treatment recommendations interview (20 HCPs).

RESULTS

This study showed that breast cancer HCPs held negative implicit associations towards older women; HCPs were less likely to recommend surgery for older patients; some HCPs held assumptions that older patients are more afraid, less willing and able to be involved in decision-making, and are less willing and able to cope with being informed of a poor treatment prognosis; and conditions which disproportionately affect older patients, such as dementia, are not always well understood by breast cancer HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that there are elements of age bias present amongst breast cancer HCPs. The study's findings of age-based assumptions and a poorer understanding of conditions which disproportionately affect older patients align with patterns of differential treatment towards older breast cancer patients suggesting that age bias may be, at least in part, driving differential treatment.

Improving outcomes for women aged 70 years or above with early breast cancer: research programme including a cluster RCT

Background

In breast cancer management, age-related practice variation is widespread, with older women having lower rates of surgery and chemotherapy than younger women, based on the premise of reduced treatment tolerance and benefit. This may contribute to inferior outcomes. There are currently no age- and fitness-stratified guidelines on which to base treatment recommendations.

Aim

We aimed to optimise treatment choice and outcomes for older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with operable breast cancer.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) determine the age, comorbidity, frailty, disease stage and biology thresholds for endocrine therapy alone versus surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, or adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy, for older women with breast cancer; (2) optimise survival outcomes for older women by improving the quality of treatment decision-making; (3) develop and evaluate a decision support intervention to enhance shared decision-making; and (4) determine the degree and causes of treatment variation between UK breast units.

Design

A prospective cohort study was used to determine age and fitness thresholds for treatment allocation. Mixed-methods research was used to determine the information needs of older women to develop a decision support intervention. A cluster-randomised trial was used to evaluate the impact of this decision support intervention on treatment choices and outcomes. Health economic analysis was used to evaluate the cost–benefit ratio of different treatment strategies according to age and fitness criteria. A mixed-methods study was used to determine the degree and causes of variation in treatment allocation.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were enhanced age- and fitness-specific decision support leading to improved quality-of-life outcomes in older women (aged ≥ 70 years) with early breast cancer.

Results

(1) Cohort study: the study recruited 3416 UK women aged ≥ 70 years (median age 77 years). Follow-up was 52 months. (a) The surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone comparison: 2854 out of 3416 (88%) women had oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, 2354 of whom received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy and 500 received endocrine therapy alone. Patients treated with endocrine therapy alone were older and frailer than patients treated with surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy. Unmatched overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival were higher in the surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy group (overall survival: hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.33; p < 0.001; breast-cancer-specific survival: hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.58; p < 0.001) than in the endocrine therapy alone group. In matched analysis, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was still associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.98; p = 0.04) than endocrine therapy alone, but not with better breast-cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.37; p = 0.34) or progression-free-survival (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 2.26; p = 0.78). (b) The adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy comparison: 2811 out of 3416 (82%) women received surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, of whom 1520 (54%) had high-recurrence-risk breast cancer [grade 3, node positive, oestrogen receptor negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive, or a high Oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) score of > 25]. In this high-risk population, there were no differences according to adjuvant chemotherapy use in overall survival or breast-cancer-specific survival after propensity matching. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of metastatic recurrence than no chemotherapy in the unmatched (adjusted hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.68; p = 0.002) and propensity-matched patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the overall survival and breast-cancer-specific survival of patients with oestrogen-receptor-negative disease. (2) Mixed-methods research to develop a decision support intervention: an iterative process was used to develop two decision support interventions (each comprising a brief decision aid, a booklet and an online tool) specifically for older women facing treatment choices (endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) using several evidence sources (expert opinion, literature and patient interviews). The online tool was based on models developed using registry data from 23,842 patients and validated on an external data set of 14,526 patients. Mortality rates at 2 and 5 years differed by < 1% between predicted and observed values. (3) Cluster-randomised clinical trial of decision support tools: 46 UK breast units were randomised (intervention, n = 21; usual care, n = 25), recruiting 1339 women (intervention, n = 670; usual care, n = 669). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months post baseline (difference –0.20, 95% confidence interval –2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.90). In women offered a choice of endocrine therapy alone or surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm than the usual care arm (94% vs. 74%; p = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with higher rates of endocrine therapy alone than of surgery in the intervention arm. Similarly, chemotherapy rates were lower in the intervention arm (endocrine therapy alone rate: intervention sites 21% vs. usual-care sites 15%, difference 5.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.1% to 10.0%; p = 0.02; adjuvant chemotherapy rate: intervention sites 10% vs. usual-care site 15%, difference 4.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.0% to 8.0%; p = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms. (4) Health economic analysis: a probabilistic economic model was developed using registry and cohort study data. For most health and fitness strata, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy had lower costs and returned more quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. However, for some women aged > 90 years, surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy was no longer cost-effective and generated fewer quality-adjusted life-years than endocrine therapy alone. The incremental benefit of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy reduced with age and comorbidities. (5) Variation in practice: analysis of rates of surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone between the 56 breast units in the cohort study demonstrated significant variation in rates of endocrine therapy alone that persisted after adjustment for age, fitness and stage. Clinician preference was an important determinant of treatment choice.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that, for older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, there is a cohort of women with a life expectancy of < 4 years for whom surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy may offer little benefit and simply have a negative impact on quality of life. The Age Gap decision tool may help make this shared decision. Similarly, although adjuvant chemotherapy offers little benefit and has a negative impact on quality of life for the majority of older women with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial. The negative impacts of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life, although significant, are transient. This implies that, for the majority of fitter women aged ≥ 70 years, standard care should be offered.

Limitations

As with any observational study, despite detailed propensity score matching, residual bias cannot be excluded. Follow-up was at median 52 months for the cohort analysis. Longer-term follow-up will be required to validate these findings owing to the slow time course of oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

Future work

The online algorithm is now available (URL: https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/; accessed May 2022). There are plans to validate the tool and incorprate quality-of-life and 10-year survival outcomes.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN46099296.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

Why do Older Women Avoid Breast Cancer Surgery? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-making Factors

BACKGROUND

Few studies have explored why older women (≥70 years old) avoid breast cancer surgery. This study aimed to identify physician- and patient-perceived attitudes that influence the decision to avoid surgery among older women with invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with multidisciplinary breast cancer specialists and older women (≥70 years old) with breast cancer who declined surgery. Transcripts were iteratively coded using a theoretical framework to guide identification of common themes. Thematic comparison was performed between patients and physicians.

RESULTS

Ten breast cancer specialists and eleven patients participated. Physicians believed older women declined surgery because they did not perceive breast cancer as a life-threatening ailment compared to other medical comorbidities. Physicians did not discuss breast reconstruction, as it was perceived to be unimportant. Treatment side effects, length of treatment, impact on quality of life, and minimal survival benefit strongly influenced patients' decision to decline surgery. Patients valued independence and quality of life over quantity of life. Patients felt empowered to participate in the decision-making process but appreciated having support. Both phyisicians and patients had congruent beliefs with respect to age impacting treatment decision, cosmesis playing a minor factor in treatment decisions, and importance of quality of life; however, they were discordant in their perceptions about the amount of support that patients have from their families.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to avoid surgery in older women stems from a variety of individual beliefs. Acknowledging patient values early in treatment planning may facilitate a patient-centered approach to the decision-making process.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: cluster randomized trial of two decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer on quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choices

BACKGROUND

Rates of surgery and adjuvant therapy for breast cancer vary widely between breast units. This may contribute to differences in survival. This cluster RCT evaluated the impact of decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women with breast cancer, to ascertain whether DESIs influenced quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choice.

METHODS

A multicentre cluster RCT compared the use of two DESIs against usual care in treatment decision-making in older women (aged at least ≥70 years) with breast cancer. Each DESI comprised an online algorithm, booklet, and brief decision aid to inform choices between surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. The primary outcome was quality of life. Secondary outcomes included decision quality measures, survival, and treatment choice.

RESULTS

A total of 46 breast units were randomized (21 intervention, 25 usual care), recruiting 1339 women (670 intervention, 669 usual care). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months after the baseline assessment on intention-to-treat analysis (difference -0.20, 95 per cent confidence interval (C.I.) -2.69 to 2.29; P = 0.900). In women offered a choice of primary endocrine therapy versus surgery plus endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm (94 versus 74 per cent; P = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with a primary endocrine therapy rate among women with oestrogen receptor-positive disease of 21.0 per cent in the intervention versus 15.4 per cent in usual-care sites (difference 5.5 (95 per cent C.I. 1.1 to 10.0) per cent; P = 0.029). The chemotherapy rate was 10.3 per cent at intervention versus 14.8 per cent at usual-care sites (difference -4.5 (C.I. -8.0 to 0) per cent; P = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms.

CONCLUSION

The use of DESIs in older women increases knowledge of breast cancer treatment options, facilitates shared decision-making, and alters treatment selection. Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2015-004220-61 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/), ISRCTN46099296 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Observational cohort study to determine the degree and causes of variation in the rate of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in older women with operable breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In the UK there is variation in the treatment of older women with breast cancer, with up to 40% receiving primary endocrine therapy (PET), which is associated with inferior survival. Case mix and patient choice may explain some variation in practice but clinician preference may also be important.

METHODS

A multicentre prospective cohort study of women aged >70 with operable breast cancer. Patient characteristics (health status, age, tumour characteristics, treatment allocation and decision-making preference) were analysed to identify whether treatment variation persisted following case-mix adjustment. Expected case-mix adjusted surgery rates were derived by logistic regression using the variables age, co-morbidity, tumour stage and grade. Concordance between patients' preferred and actual decision-making style was assessed and associations between age, treatment and decision-making style calculated.

RESULTS

Women (median age 77, range 70-102) were recruited from 56 UK breast units between 2013 and 2018. Of 2854/3369 eligible women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer, 2354 were treated with surgery and 500 with PET. Unadjusted surgery rates varied between hospitals, with 23/56 units falling outside the 95% confidence intervals on funnel plots. Adjusting for case mix reduced, but did not eliminate, this variation between hospitals (10/56 units had practice outside the 95% confidence intervals). Patients treated with PET had more patient-centred decisions compared to surgical patients (42.2% vs 28.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates variation in treatment selection thresholds for older women with breast cancer. Health stratified guidelines on thresholds for PET would help reduce variation, although patient preference should still be respected.

Older women's experience with breast cancer treatment: A systematic review of qualitative literature

Background

The experience of older women during breast cancer treatment is insufficiently described by quantitative studies. This study aimed to systematically review qualitative data describing factors that influence older women’s (≥65 years old) experience with breast cancer treatment.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) principles. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched (inception – 2020). Quality assessment of essential item reporting was performed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) criteria. Common ideas were coded, thematically organized, and synthesized within a theoretical framework.

Results

Of 7,773 studies identified, twelve were included. The median SRQR score was 13.4 (range 11.3–15.9) (maximum score: 21). Data synthesis revealed that older women experienced breast cancer as a journey with challenges during each phase. During diagnosis, they delayed seeking medical help despite symptoms. Age and experience gave them perspective on the impact of their diagnosis. During decision-making, preconceptions and personal values determined choices. In the treatment phase, women experienced medical and social barriers to care. During the post-treatment phase, many experienced treatment adverse effects, but could move on or compartmentalize as coping mechanisms.

Conclusion

Older women with breast cancer have unique challenges specific to each phase of their treatment journey. Older women may benefit from proactive treatment discussions with health care providers to address their specific needs, individualize care, and assist with cancer care navigation.

•

Older women have challenges specific to each phase of their treatment journey.

•

Older women experience barriers to care and depended on their social network.

•

Older women could conceptually move on or compartmentalize as coping mechanisms.

•

Physicians should be aware of the unique features of each treatment phase.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Background

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients’ and/or surgeons’ surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

Conclusions

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Background

Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes.

Methods

This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.

Results

Thirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported.

Conclusion

At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.

Heterogeneous data

Patient-reported factors influencing the treatment decision-making process of older women with non-metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

PURPOSE

Older women (≥ 70 years old) with breast cancer undergo different treatments than young women. Studies have examined factors that influence this disparity, but synthesized patient-reported data are lacking in the literature. This study aims to identify, appraise, and synthesize the existing qualitative evidence on patient-reported factors influencing older women's decision to accept or decline breast cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) principles. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for qualitative studies describing patient-reported factors influencing the decision-making process of older women (≥ 70 years old) with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer. Quality was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) criteria. Common ideas were coded, thematically organized, and synthesized within a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Of 5998 studies identified, 10 met eligibility criteria. The median SRQR total score was 13.04 (IQR 12.84-13.81). The studies represented a range of cancer treatments; most of the studies focused on surgery and primary endocrine therapy. Our data show that the most common patient-reported factors in the decision-making process included treatment characteristics, personal goals/beliefs, patient characteristics, physician's recommendation, and personal/family experience. These factors led the patient to either accept or decline treatment, and were not consistent across all studies included. Studies used different interview guides, which may have affected these results.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the complexity of factors that influence an older woman's treatment decision-making process. Acknowledging and addressing these factors may improve discussions about treatment choices between older women and their health care providers, and encourage maximization of a patient-centered approach.

Information needs and decision-making preferences of older women offered a choice between surgery and primary endocrine therapy for early breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

To establish older women's (≥75 years) information preferences regarding 2 breast cancer treatment options: surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy. To quantify women's preferences for the mode of information presentation and decision-making (DM) style.

METHODS

This was a UK multicentre survey of women, ≥75 years, who had been offered a choice between PET and surgery at diagnosis of breast cancer. A questionnaire was developed including 2 validated scales of decision regret and DM preferences.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were sent to 247 women, and 101 were returned (response rate 41%). The median age of participants was 82 (range 75 to 99), with 58 having had surgery and 37 having PET. Practical details about the impact, safety, and efficacy of treatment were of most interest to participants. Of least interest were cosmetic outcomes after surgery. Information provided verbally by doctors and nurses, supported by booklets, was preferred. There was little interest in technology-based sources of information. There was equal preference for a patient- or doctor-centred DM style and lower preference for a shared DM style. The majority (74%) experienced their preferred DM style. Levels of decision regret were low (15.73, scale 0-100).

CONCLUSIONS

Women strongly preferred face to face information. Written formats were also helpful but not computer-based resources. Information that was found helpful to women in the DM process was identified. The study demonstrates many women achieved their preferred DM style, with a preference for involvement, and expressed low levels of decision regret.

Chemotherapy treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians: a mixed methods study

Purpose

Although comorbidities, frailty, and functional impairment are common in older adults (OA) with cancer, little is known about how these factors are considered during the treatment decision-making process by OAs, their families, and health care providers. Our aim was to better understand the treatment decision process from all these perspectives.

Methods

A mixed methods multi-perspective longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews and surveys with 29 OAs aged ≥70 years with advanced prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, 24 of their family members,13 oncologists, and 15 family physicians was conducted. The sample was stratified on age (70–79 and 80+). All interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

There was no difference in the treatment decision-making experience based on age. Most OAs felt that they should have the final say in the treatment decision, but strongly valued their oncologists’ opinion. “Trust in my oncologist” and “chemotherapy as the last resort to prolong life” were the most important reasons to accept treatment. Families indicated a need to improve communication between them, the patient and the specialist, particularly around goals of treatment. Comorbidity and potential side-effects did not play a major role in the treatment decision-making for patients, families, or oncologists. Family physicians reported no involvement in decisions but desired to be more involved.

Conclusion

This first study using multiple perspectives showed neither frailty nor comorbidity played a role in the treatment decision-making process. Efforts to improve communication were identified as an opportunity that may enhance quality of care.

Condensed abstract

In a mixed methods study multiple perspective study with older adults with cancer, their family members, their oncologist and their family physician we explored the treatment decision making process and found that most older adults were satisfied with their decision. Comorbidity, functional status and frailty did not impact the older adult’s or their family members’ decision.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-016-3476-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Preoperative evaluation of the older patient with cancer

The lack of knowledge has helped us in progressing with the aim of offering the right surgical treatment to the right patient at the right time. Preoperative assessment of frailty identifies those patients who are at a higher operative risk, more prone to develop complications, spend more time in hospital and cost more to the community. Phase IV trials are becoming essential in expanding our understanding, while randomized clinical trials are unlikely to add substantial value in this field of clinical research.

Tailoring surgery to elderly patients with cancer

Better assessments needed to assess frailty