Patient-reported outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Low-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Secondary Analysis of the COMET Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Active monitoring (AM) for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has been considered as a potential alternative to guideline-concordant care (GCC; inclusive of surgery with or without radiation). Reported data comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between GCC and AM for DCIS are lacking.

Objective

To compare PROs at baseline and over time in patients with low-risk DCIS randomized to receive either AM or GCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prespecified secondary outcome analysis used prospectively collected validated questionnaires at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years from participants enrolled from June 2017 to January 2023 in the Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, With or Without Endocrine Therapy (COMET) study for low-risk DCIS, which randomized participants to receive GCC or AM.

Intervention

Randomization to GCC or AM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Context-relevant PROs, including health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, and symptoms measured by validated survey instruments. Mixed models, including sensitivity analyses, with group, point, and group-by-point effects were used to compare PROs between groups.

Results

Of the 957 participants in COMET, 225 (24%) were younger than 55 years at enrollment, 325 (34%) were aged 55 to 65 years, and 403 (42%) were older than 65 years, and 953 (99.5%) completed questionnaires at some point within the first 2 years, with a completion rate of more than 83% at all points. Quality of life, anxiety, depression, worries about DCIS, and symptom trajectories were comparable between groups, with modest fluctuations over time of limited clinical significance. Physical functioning was the only specific Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) domain for which changes in the score trajectory differed by group over time, with mean scores ranging from 50 (baseline) to 48 (6, 12, and 24 months) in the GCC group and 50 (baseline) to 47 (12 months) and 48 (6 and 24 months) in the AM group (pooled SD, 9.9; P = .01), although these were also of limited clinical significance.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prespecified secondary analysis of the COMET prospective randomized trial, the overall lived experience of women randomized to undergo AM for low-risk DCIS was similar to that of women randomized to GCC during the 2 years following diagnosis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02926911.

Labels, Language, and Other Strategies to Improve Communication About Lower Grade Forms of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A National Delphi Survey

Purpose: This study is aimed at generating consensus among women who had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and healthcare professionals on how to improve communication about low-risk forms of DCIS and reduce affected women's diagnosis-related confusion and anxiety. Methods: We conducted a two-round online Delphi survey with affected women and professionals from across Canada. They rated items sourced from prior research and key informant interviews on a 7-point Likert scale. We retained items rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 80% of panelists. Results: Thirty-seven panelists (17 women, 20 professionals) completed Round 1 and 94.6% of those completed Round 2. Of 42 items rated, 18 were retained, 13 discarded, and 11 did not achieve consensus to retain or discard. Women and professionals agreed on 3 language approaches (use plain language, distinguish DCIS from invasive breast cancer, specify the risk of recurrence and spread) and 9 other strategies to help discuss DCIS (e.g., use visual aids, provide or refer women to culturally tailored DCIS-specific information, ensure physicians can access interpreters). Based on rating and comments, women were more enthusiastic than professionals about referring to abnormal cells rather than DCIS and scheduling longer or follow-up visits to address concerns. To disseminate these findings, panelists recommended public awareness campaigns for women and continuing education and professional society endorsement for physicians. Conclusion: These findings address gaps in prior research that recommended changing the DCIS label, but had not fully explored label preferences, or identified other ways to improve and support communication about DCIS.

Proportion of Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ That Qualify for Observation Criteria Set Forth by Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The COMET, LORD, and LORIS clinical trials are investigating the role of active surveillance in low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The objective of this study was to identify the proportion of patients eligible for these trials amongst a cohort of patients treated at our institution.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients diagnosed with DCIS who were treated from 2013 to 2022. Clinical, tumor, and imaging inclusion and exclusion criteria of the aforementioned observation trials were applied to determine the proportion of patients eligible for each trial. Upgrade rate to invasive cancer were examined across all three groups.

RESULTS

Of 1223 patients diagnosed with DCIS, applying the criteria of each trial, 245 (20%), 238 (19.4%), and 264 (21.6%) patients were eligible for the COMET, LORD, and LORIS trials, respectively. High-grade DCIS and mass on imaging had the largest impact on exclusion. Nineteen (7.8%) of women who qualified for COMET were upgraded to invasive disease at excision, compared to 18 (7.6%) for LORD, and 19 (7.2%) for LORIS.

CONCLUSIONS

One in five patients diagnosed with DCIS at our institution would qualify for observation with current trial eligibility. Observation of DCIS may have limited impact on all DCIS patients.

A morphometric signature to identify ductal carcinoma in situ with a low risk of progression

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may progress to ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), but often never will. Because DCIS is treated as early breast cancer, many women with harmless DCIS face overtreatment. To identify features associated with progression, we developed an artificial intelligence-based DCIS morphometric analysis pipeline (AIDmap) on hematoxylin-eosin-stained (H&E) tissue sections. We analyzed 689 digitized H&Es of pure primary DCIS of which 226 were diagnosed with subsequent iIBC and 463 were not. The distribution of 15 duct morphological measurements was summarized in 55 morphometric variables. A ridge regression classifier with cross validation predicted 5-years-free of iIBC with an area-under the curve of 0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.77). A combined clinical-morphometric signature, characterized by small-sized ducts, a low number of cells and a low DCIS/stroma ratio, was associated with outcome (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.28-0.78). AIDmap has potential to identify harmless DCIS that may not need treatment.

Preferred labels and language to improve communication about lesions at low risk of progressing to cancer: qualitative interviews with patients and physicians

OBJECTIVES

We explored how to improve communication about low-risk lesions including labels, language and other strategies.

DESIGN

Qualitative description and thematic analysis to examine the transcripts of telephone interviews with patients who had low-risk lesions and physicians; and mapping to Communication Accommodation Theory to interpret themes.

SETTING

Canada PARTICIPANTS: 15 patients: 6 (40%) bladder, 5 (33%) prostate and 4 (27%) cervix lesions; and 13 physicians: 7 (54%) cervix, 3 (23%) bladder and 3 (23%) prostate lesions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient and physician views of labels, language and other strategies to improve communication about low-risk lesions.

RESULTS

Patients and clinicians held discordant views about low-risk lesion label impact, preferences and rationale. All labels prompted confusion and anxiety among patients. In contrast, physicians perceived that patients understood that labels they used across all label categories (abnormal, precursor-to-cancer and cancer) implied low risk for cancer progression. Patients preferred abnormal cells, particularly when first learning of their diagnosis, and desired additional information to distinguish their diagnosis from cancer and justify treatment. In contrast, physicians favoured precursor-to-cancer and cancer labels out of habit, to match labels that patients saw elsewhere (online, charts) and to convince patients to attend follow-up and treatment visits. However, patients and physicians largely agreed on the need for 16 strategies that could improve communication about low-risk lesions including language (eg, plain language, situate low-risk lesions on cancer spectrum) and complementary communication strategies (eg, longer appointments, visual aids, connect patients with support services or groups).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings build on prior research by revealing that modifying labels is not the only or best strategy needed to improve communication about low-risk lesions. Ongoing research should examine how best to implement the strategies recommended by patients and physicians.

Quality of life issues in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is one of the most common pre-invasive cancers diagnosed in women. Quality of life (QoL) is extremely important to assess in studies including these patients due to the favorable prognosis of the disease. The primary objective of this systematic review was to compile a comprehensive list of QoL issues, all existing QoL assessment tools, and patient-reported outcome measures used to assess DCIS.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to August 2023, using keywords such as "ductal carcinoma in-situ", "quality of life", and "patient-reported outcomes." QoL issues and QoL tools in primary research studies were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 67 articles identified issues pertaining to patients with DCIS spanning physical, functional, and psychosocial QoL domains. Physical and functional issues observed in patients included pain, fatigue, and impaired sexual functioning. Psychosocial issues such as anxiety, depression, and confusion about one's disease were also common. QoL tools included those that assessed general QoL, breast cancer-specific tools, and issue-specific questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

The current instruments available to assess QoL in patients with DCIS do not comprehensively capture the issues that are pertinent to patients. Thus, the modification of existing tools or the creation of a DCIS-specific QoL tool is recommended to ensure that future research will be sensitive towards challenges faced by patients with DCIS.

Trajectory patterns and factors associated with acceptance of disability in young and middle-aged breast cancer patients: a longitudinal study

PURPOSE

To explore the trajectories of acceptance of disability in young and middle-aged breast cancer patients based on a latent class growth analysis, investigate factors associated with each trajectory, and identify whether return to normal living differs in different trajectories.

METHODS

Young and middle-aged patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent surgery were followed up at baseline, and 1, 3, and 6 months in China. Participants completed sociodemographic information questionnaires, the Adaptation of Disability Scale Revised, and the Reintegration to Normal Living Index. A latent class growth analysis was used to explore the trajectories of acceptance of disability.

RESULTS

Among 212 patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, the mean age of patients was 45.44 years. The majority of participants were with invasive carcinoma (77.8%). Three classes were identified: high acceptance of disability increasing group (high-increasing, 13.7%), moderate acceptance of disability stable group (moderate-stable, 67.9%), and moderate acceptance of disability decreasing group (moderate-decreasing, 18.3%). Being unemployed or retired and receiving endocrine therapy are risk factors associated with acceptance of disability. Carcinoma in situ is a protective factor associated with acceptance of disability. Participants diagnosed with carcinoma in situ and who not receive endocrine therapy were more likely to be in high-increasing group. Unemployed participants before surgery were more likely to be in moderate-decreasing group. Moreover, the Reintegration to Normal Living Index scores had significant differences from baseline to 6 months of follow-up. The high-increasing group had the highest average Reintegration to Normal Living Index scores than the moderate-stable group and the moderate-decreasing group, showing similar patterns at four timepoints.

CONCLUSION

We identified three trajectories of acceptance of disability. Dynamic and individualized intervention should be continuously provided to ensure patients acquire adequate medical resources to comprehensively increase acceptance of disability.

Adherence to guideline recommendations for follow-up in patients with DCIS at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

Ductal-carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a pre-invasive form of breast cancer with good prognosis. Follow-up guidelines in the Netherlands are currently the same as for invasive breast cancer. Due to fear of invasive breast cancer or recurrence, it is hypothesized that follow-up for DCIS after treatment is more intense in practice resulting in potentially unnecessary high costs. This study investigates the follow-up in practice for patients with DCIS compared to the recommendations in order to inform clinicians and policy makers how to utilize these guidelines.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pure DCIS between 2004 and 2014 were followed up until 2018. Information on duration and frequency of follow-up visits, reasons and decision makers for shortening, and prolonging follow-up was collected. Prolonged follow-up was defined as deviation from the Dutch guideline: more than 5 years of follow-up and older than 60 years.

RESULTS

Of the 227 patients the mean number of visits per year was 1.4 and mean years of follow-up was 6.0. Thirty-three percent had prolonged follow-up and 26% shorter follow-up than recommended. A majority (78%) of decision for prolonged follow-up was being made by clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up duration is in almost half of patients with DCIS according to guidelines and with most prolonged follow-up only up to a year longer than recommended. In most cases suspicious findings and the timing of the population screening program appeared to cause prolonged follow-up. If accepted by patients and clinicians, future DCIS specific guidelines should address these reasons and tailor to the individual risks.

Effect of propofol and sevoflurane on postoperative fatigue after laparoscopic hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative fatigue syndrome (POFS) is an important factor in postoperative recovery. However, the effect of anesthetic drugs on postoperative fatigue in female patients has been rarely studied. This study compared the effects of maintaining general anesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane on the incidence of POFS in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eligible patients were randomized into the propofol and sevoflurane groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of POFS within 30 Days, defined by a simplified identity consequence fatigue scale (ICFS-10) scores≥24 or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of fatigues>6. Secondary outcomes were perioperative grip strength, early ambulation and anal exhaust after surgery, and inpatient days.

RESULTS

32 participants were assigned to the propofol group (P) and 33 to the sevoflurane group (S). Incidence of POFS on postoperative D1 was P (8/32) vs. S (10/33) (p = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.4-27.00); D3 P (2/32) vs. S (5/33) (p = 0.45,95% CI:5.96-23.76). POFS were not found on postoperative D5 and D30. There were no differences in perioperative grip strength, early ambulation and anal exhaust after surgery, and inpatient days between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

POFS after scheduled laparoscopic hysterectomy was unaffected by anesthesia with propofol vs. sevoflurane. The incidence of POFS was highest on the first postoperative day, at 27.7%, and declined progressively over the postoperative 30 days. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR 2,000,033,861), registered on 14/06/2020).

Assessing the Impact of Organ Failure and Metastases on Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study Based on Utilizing EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR45 Questionnaires in Romania

Breast cancer (BC) significantly impacts the quality of life (QoL) of affected individuals. This study, conducted at Colțea Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, aimed to assess the impact of organ failures and metastases on QoL in breast cancer patients using EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR45 questionnaires and the survival rate to understand the clinical journey and the quality of life status in breast cancer patients. From January 2019 to October 2022, a prospective, observational study surveyed 874 patients, revealing 201 fatalities, 66 refusals, and 607 eligible participants. Results indicated statistically significant differences in various QoL aspects for patients experiencing heart failure, including physical functioning, pain, insomnia, global health status, and overall summary score. Kidney failure exhibited significance in physical functioning for QLQ-C30 and body image, sexual functioning, and endocrine sexual symptoms for QLQ-BR45. Respiratory failure demonstrated significant differences across multiple QoL domains. Patients with bone metastases reported lower physical functioning (p = 0.006) and increased pain (p = 0.002). This study has revealed an overall 5-year life expectancy of 68.8%, with survival rates of 93.8% for Stage I, 86.3% for Stage II, and 77.2% for Stage III breast cancer. Metastatic cancer patients have shown a 35.6% survival rate over 45 months, with a median survival duration of 36 months. A significant limitation of our study was the administration of the questionnaire only once, preventing us from quantifying the impact of specific treatment types on quality of life. This study emphasizes the necessity of using standardized QoL assessments in clinical practice from the initial presentation to ongoing follow-up.

Artificial intelligence-based morphometric signature to identify ductal carcinoma in situ with low risk of progression to invasive breast cancer

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may progress to ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), but often never will. Because DCIS is treated as early breast cancer, many women with harmless DCIS face overtreatment. To identify these women that may forego treatment, we hypothesized that DCIS morphometric features relate to the risk of subsequent iIBC. We developed an artificial intelligence-based DCIS morphometric analysis pipeline (AIDmap) to detect DCIS as a pathologist and measure morphological structures in hematoxylin-eosin-stained (H&E) tissue sections. These were from a case-control study of patients diagnosed with primary DCIS, treated by breast-conserving surgery without radiotherapy. We analyzed 689 WSIs of DCIS of which 226 were diagnosed with subsequent iIBC (cases) and 463 were not (controls). The distribution of 15 duct morphological measurements in each H&E was summarized in 55 morphometric variables. A ridge regression classifier with cross validation predicted 5-years-free of iIBC with an area-under the curve of 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76). A morphometric signature based on the 30 variables most associated with outcome, identified lesions containing small-sized ducts, low number of cells and low DCIS/stroma area ratio. This signature was associated with lower iIBC risk in a multivariate regression model including grade, ER, HER2 and COX-2 expression (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.28-0.78). AIDmap has potential to identify harmless DCIS that may not need treatment.

Women's views about current and future management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS): A mixed-methods study

Management of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, with clinical trials currently assessing the safety of active monitoring amidst concern about overtreatment. Little is known about general community views regarding DCIS and its management. We aimed to explore women's understanding and views about low-risk DCIS and current and potential future management options. This mixed-method study involved qualitative focus groups and brief quantitative questionnaires. Participants were screening-aged (50-74 years) women, with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and no personal history of breast cancer/DCIS, recruited from across metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sessions incorporated an informative presentation interspersed with group discussions which were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Fifty-six women took part in six age-stratified focus groups. Prior awareness of DCIS was limited, however women developed reasonable understanding of DCIS and the relevant issues. Overall, women expressed substantial support for active monitoring being offered as a management approach for low-risk DCIS, and many were interested in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial. Although some women expressed concern that current management may sometimes represent overtreatment, there were mixed views about personally accepting monitoring. Women noted a number of important questions and considerations that would factor into their decision making. Our findings about women's perceptions of active monitoring for DCIS are timely while results of ongoing clinical trials of monitoring are awaited, and may inform clinicians and investigators designing future, similar trials. Exploration of offering well-informed patients the choice of non-surgical management of low-risk DCIS, even outside a clinical trial setting, may be warranted.

The long-term psychosocial consequences of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a risk factor for invasive breast cancer (IBC). The prognosis of DCIS is considerably better than for IBC, yet women do not distinguish between the threat. We aimed to compare the psychosocial consequences of screen-detected DCIS and IBC, and to examine this comparison over time.

METHODS

We surveyed a Danish mammography-screening cohort from 2004 to 2018. We assessed outcomes at six-time points: baseline, 1, 6, 18, 36 months, and 14 years after the screening. We measured psychosocial consequences with the Consequences Of Screening - Breast Cancer (COS-BC): a condition-specific questionnaire that is psychometrically validated and encompasses 14 psychosocial dimensions. We used weighted linear models with generalized estimating equations to compare responses between groups. We used a 1% level of significance.

RESULTS

170 out of 1309 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (13.0%). 23 were diagnosed with DCIS (13.5%) and 147 with IBC (86.5%). From baseline to six months after diagnosis, there were no significant differences between women with DCIS and IBC. However, mean scores indicated that IBC generally was more affected than DCIS. After six months, we observed that women with DCIS and IBC might be affected differently in the long term; mean scores and mean differences showed that IBC were more affected on some scales, while DCIS were on others.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the DCIS and IBC experienced similar levels of psychosocial consequences. Women might benefit from renaming DCIS to exclude cancer nomenclature.

Are there sustained psychological impacts in women diagnosed with in-situ or early invasive breast cancers?

Purpose

The detection of a ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) or an early invasive breast cancer (EIBC), particularly by population-wide mammography-screening-programs, is controversial as an unknown proportion of these cases may be due to overdiagnosis. We investigated whether women with such potentially overdiagnosed breast cancers suffer from sustained adverse psycho-social consequences.

Methods

Standardized questionnaires were mailed to 900 survivors, diagnosed with either DCIS or EIBC, requesting self-reports on quality of life using EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Levels of anxiety and depression were assessed using the HADS questionnaires. Item score values in the study group were compared to reference data obtained from normative studies in the German female reference population.

Results

The 577 women who returned completed questionnaires had a mean age of 65.1 years, 387 (67%) had been diagnosed by mammography screening. Median time since diagnosis was 5.9 years. There were no substantial differences between the study sample and the reference population for most of the items. While most score values were even slightly more favorable in the study group, the scores for cognitive function were moderately lower, especially among younger patients. Score values for anxiety were generally higher among younger women (50 to 59 years) from the study group, while depression scores were lower irrespective of age.

Conclusions

This study indicates that the diagnosis of DCIS or EIBC, which is predominantly a result of screening, does not seem to induce sustained, adverse psychological impacts in affected women when compared with the respective general female population. Only anxiety levels remained elevated among younger women.

Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review

Simple Summary

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a potential precursor to invasive breast cancer (IBC). Although in many women DCIS will never become breast cancer, almost all women diagnosed with DCIS undergo surgery with/without radiotherapy. Several studies are ongoing to de-escalate treatment for DCIS. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to aid women with DCIS in selecting the best treatment option for their specific goals. The aim of this study was to identify these decision support tools and evaluate their quality and clinical utility. Thirty-three studies were reviewed, in which four decision aids and six prediction models were described. While some of these models might be promising, most lacked important qualities such as tools to help women discuss their options or good quality validation studies. Therefore, the need for good quality, well validated decision support tools remains unmet.

Abstract

Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/− radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools’ methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS.

A web-based personalized decision support tool for patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: development, content evaluation, and usability testing

PURPOSE

Patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face trade-offs when deciding among different treatments, including surgery, radiation, and endocrine therapy. A less chosen option is active monitoring. While evidence from clinical trials is not yet available, observational studies show comparable results for active monitoring and immediate treatment on cancer outcomes in select subgroups of patients. We developed and tested a web-based decision support tool (DST) to help patients explore current knowledge about DCIS and make an informed choice.

METHODS

The DST, an interactive web application, was informed by literature reviews and formative work with patients, breast surgeons, and health communication experts. We conducted iterative interviews to evaluate the DST content among women with and without a history of breast cancer, as well as breast cancer experts. For usability testing, we conducted an online survey among women with and without a history of breast cancer.

RESULTS

For content evaluation, 5 women with and 10 women without a history of DCIS were interviewed. The sample included 11 White and 4 non-White women, with a mean age of 64 years. The expert sample consisted of 5 attendings and a physician assistant. The feedback was used to add, clarify, or reorganize information in the DST. For usability testing, 22 participants with a mean age of 61 years were recruited including 15 White and 7 Black women and 6 women with a history of DCIS. The mean usability score was 3.7 out of 5. Most participants (86%) found that the DST provided unbiased information about treatments. To improve usability, we reduced the per-page content and added navigation cues.

CONCLUSION

Content and usability evaluation showed that the DST helps patients explore trade-offs of active monitoring and immediate treatment. By adopting a personalized approach, the tool will enable informed decisions aligned with patients' values and expectations.

Treating (low-risk) DCIS patients: What can we learn from real-world cancer registry evidence?

PURPOSE

Results from active surveillance trials for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will not be available for > 10 years. A model based on real-world data (RWD) can demonstrate the comparative impact of non-intervention for women with low-risk features.

METHODS

Multi-state models were developed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data for three treatment strategies (no local treatment, breast conserving surgery [BCS], BCS + radiotherapy [RT]), and for women with DCIS low-risk features. Eligible cases included women aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with primary DCIS between 1992 and 2016. Five mutually exclusive health states were modelled: DCIS, ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) ≤ 5 years and > 5 years post-DCIS diagnosis, contralateral IBC, death preceded by and death not preceded by IBC. Propensity score-weighted Cox models assessed effects of treatment, age, diagnosis year, grade, ER status, and race.

RESULTS

Data on n = 85,982 women were used. Increased risk of iIBC ≤ 5 years post-DCIS was demonstrated for ages 40-49 (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.86, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.34-2.57 compared to age 50-69), grade 3 lesions (HR 1.42, 95%CI 1.05-1.91) compared to grade 2, lesion size ≥ 2 cm (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.23-2.25), and Black race (HR 2.52, 95%CI 1.83-3.48 compared to White). According to the multi-state model, propensity score-matched women with low-risk features who had not died or experienced any subsequent breast event by 10 years, had a predicted probability of iIBC as first event of 3.02% for no local treatment, 1.66% for BCS, and 0.42% for BCS+RT.

CONCLUSION

RWD from the SEER registry showed that women with primary DCIS and low-risk features demonstrate minimal differences by treatment strategy in experiencing subsequent breast events. There may be opportunity to de-escalate treatment for certain women with low-risk features: Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women aged 50-69 at diagnosis, with ER+, grade 1 + 2, < 2 cm DCIS lesions.

Views of healthcare professionals about the role of active monitoring in the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): Qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is an in-situ (pre-cancerous) breast malignancy whereby malignant cells are contained within the basement membrane of the breast ducts. Increasing awareness that some low-risk forms of DCIS might remain indolent for many years has led to concern about overtreatment, with at least 3 clinical trials underway internationally assessing the safety of active monitoring for low-risk DCIS. This study aimed to understand healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views on the management options for patients with DCIS.

METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with HCPs involved in the diagnosis and management of DCIS in Australia and New Zealand. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis method.

RESULTS

Twenty-six HCPs including 10 breast surgeons, 3 breast physicians, 6 radiation oncologists, and 7 breast care nurses participated. There was a strong overall consensus that DCIS requires active treatment. HCPs generally felt uncomfortable recommending active monitoring as a management option for low-risk DCIS as they viewed this as outside current standard care. Overall, HCPs felt that active monitoring was an unproven strategy in need of an evidence base; however, many acknowledged that active monitoring for low-risk DCIS could be appropriate for patients with significant co-morbidities or limited life expectancy. They believed that most patients would opt for surgery wherever possible.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the important need for robust randomised controlled trial data about active monitoring for women with low-risk DCIS, to provide HCPs with confidence in their management recommendations and decision-making.

A medicare-based comparative mortality analysis of active surveillance in older women with DCIS

Over 97% of individuals diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will choose to receive guideline concordant care (GCC), which was originally designed to treat invasive cancers and is associated with treatment related morbidity. An alternative to GCC is active surveillance (AS) where therapy is delayed until medically necessary. Differences in mortality risk between the two approaches in women age 65+ are analyzed in this study. SEER and Medicare information on treatment during the first year after diagnosis was used to identify three cohorts based on treatment type and timing: GCC (N = 21,772; immediate consent for treatment), AS1 (N = 431; delayed treatment within 365 days), and AS2 (N = 205; no treatment/ongoing AS). A propensity score-based approach provided pseudorandomization between GCC and AS groups and survival was then compared. Strong influence of comorbidities on the treatment received was observed for all age-groups, with the greatest burden observed in the AS2 group. All-cause and breast-cancer-specific mortality hazard ratios (HR) for AS1 were not statistically different from the GCC group; AS2 was associated with notably higher risk for both all-cause (HR:3.54; CI:3.29, 3.82) and breast-cancer-specific (HR:10.73; CI:8.63,13.35) mortality. Cumulative mortality was substantially higher from other causes than from breast cancer, regardless of treatment group. Women managed with AS for DCIS had higher all-cause and breast-cancer-specific mortality. This effect declined after accounting for baseline comorbidities. Delays of up to 12 months in initiation of GCC did not underperform immediate surgery.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): The importance of patient-reported outcomes (PRO)

Purpose

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are an optimal method for assessing quality of life (QOL), including physical and psychosocial health. This review summarizes PROs frequently assessed in the setting of a DCIS diagnosis.

Recent findings

Health-related QOL has generally been found to be modestly affected in women with DCIS and similar to women with invasive breast cancer. Several studies reported a substantial negative impact on sexual health and body image, including some differences based on surgery type. Some patients experience pain after treatment, although many physical symptoms resolve. The prevalence of anxiety and depression varied based on assessment timing, with symptoms improving over time. Women with DCIS often overestimate the risks associated both with DCIS and invasive cancer.

Summary

PROs provide critical information regarding the experiences of women following a DCIS diagnosis. Continued inclusion of PROs in clinical trials is warranted, further informing treatment decisions and adequately preparing patients for what to expect following treatment.

Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years.

METHODS

The BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236.

FINDINGS

Between June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05-0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06-0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06-0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03-0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [-0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference -1·10 [95% CI -1·79 to -0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

Tumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society.

Women's Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?

Background. Breast cancer screening has been presented to women as mostly positive for decades, despite voices raising issues related to harms since its introduction. Public communications about breast cancer screening tended to use persuasive techniques aimed at maximizing uptake. Concern about the harm of overdetection is more recent, and awareness of overdetection among the public is limited. We aimed to assess the impact of extensive information on treatment following overdetection in breast screening on women’s acceptance of screening, and to assess correlates of acceptance. Methods. We performed an online survey among women aged 45-75 from the general public in the Netherlands and Australia, asking women their maximum acceptable ratio of overdetection, per breast cancer death avoided, for four treatment scenarios (randomized order): mastectomy; lumpectomy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy and hormone therapy. The effect of treatment was assessed using General Linear Models, controlling for socio-demographics, experience, and psychological characteristics. Results. Four-hundred Australian and 403 Dutch women responded. Around half of the women would always screen, even at a 6:1 overdetection-to-death-avoided ratio. Acceptance was highest for the lumpectomy scenario, decreasing with more invasive treatment. In multivariate analyses the effect of treatment remained (p<0.001). Higher acceptance was seen for women with children (p=0.04), screening experience (p<0.001), and less understanding of overdetection (p<0.001). A learning effect was seen: acceptance was highest for the first scenario shown. Conclusions. Acceptance of overdetection was high, but decreased after the first scenario and with invasiveness of treatment. This provides a first indication that with more knowledge and understanding, women may move from uncritical acceptance of screening towards a more informed decision that involves a trade-off of the benefits and harms.

Evidence map of ductal carcinoma in situ management options

OBJECTIVE

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has the potential to progress to invasive carcinoma. The optimal management of DCIS and methods for individualizing treatment of DCIS are still being determined. This evidence map depicts the robustness and topical span of research on DCIS management choice on patient-centered and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed Health, PROSPERO, and clinical practice guideline sites to identify systematic reviews of DCIS management options and consulted with topic experts. A bubble plot visualizes the literature volume and research content for patient-centered outcomes. An online decision tree facilitates discussions with patients and guides through the available evidence.

RESULTS

In total, 40 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. The research syntheses addressed DCIS management options, including the role of magnetic resonance imaging, axillary surgery/sentinel lymph node biopsy, and excisional biopsy. The map shows existing evidence for mutually exclusive treatment options including active surveillance, breast-conserving surgery, nipple sparing mastectomy, and simple mastectomy. Research findings for intraoperative radiation, adjuvant radiation therapy, adjuvant hormone therapy, hypofractionation radiotherapy, accelerated partial breast irradiation, radiation therapy plus boost, and combined radiation and hormone therapy, as well as for breast reconstruction after mastectomy and surveillance mammography postsurgery are also displayed. The evidence map highlights a scarcity of robust evidence on patient-centered outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence map provides an overview of DCIS research showing the range of management options and remaining decisional dilemmas that follow a diagnosis of DCIS. It maps the evidence in accessible tools to guide practice and future research. : Video Summary:http://links.lww.com/MENO/A448.

Recommendations to improve patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: Qualitative focus groups with women

Background

Patient‐centred care (PCC) improves health‐care experiences and outcomes. Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and clinicians have reported communication difficulties. Little prior research has studied how to improve communication and PCC for DCIS.

Objective

This study explored how to achieve PCC for DCIS.

Design

Canadian women treated for DCIS from five provinces participated in semi‐structured focus groups based on a 6‐domain cancer‐specific PCC framework to discuss communication about DCIS. Data were analysed using constant comparative technique.

Setting and Participants

Thirty‐five women aged 30 to 86 participated in five focus groups at five hospitals.

Results

Women said their clinicians used multiple approaches for fostering a healing relationship; however, most described an absence of desired information or behaviour to exchange information, respond to emotions, manage uncertainty, make decisions and enable self‐management. Most women were confused by terminology, offered little information about the risks of progression/recurrence, uninformed about treatment benefits and risks, frustrated with lack of engagement in decision making, given little information about follow‐up plans or self‐care advice, and received no acknowledgement or offer of emotional support.

Discussion and Conclusions

By comparing the accounts of women with DCIS to a PCC framework, we identified limitations and inconsistencies in women's lived experience of communication about DCIS, and approaches by which clinicians can more consistently achieve PCC for DCIS. Future research should develop and evaluate informational tools to support PCC for DCIS.

Psychological morbidity in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ compared with women with early breast cancer receiving radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Despite having an excellent prognosis, patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) report significant anxiety and depression following diagnosis. This study evaluated psychological morbidity using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) in patients with DCIS compared with women with early-stage invasive breast cancer (EIBC) receiving radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

We identified patients diagnosed with DCIS or EIBC (stage I or II breast cancer) from 2011 to 2017 who had at least one ESAS completed pre- and post-RT. Data on systemic treatment, radiation, patient demographics, and disease stage were extracted from existing databases. Psychological morbidity was evaluated through measurement of depression, anxiety, and overall wellbeing within the ESAS. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test or chi-square test was performed for continuous or categorical variables.

RESULTS

This study included 137 women with DCIS and 963 women with EIBC. ESAS was completed on average 28 days before RT (baseline) and 142 days after RT. Baseline ESAS scores showed significantly higher rates of depression among women with EIBC compared with those with DCIS (p = 0.006). Patients with EIBC also reported higher levels of anxiety and lower overall wellbeing than patients with DCIS, but this difference was not statistically significant. Post-RT ESAS scores showed significantly higher anxiety in patients with EIBC compared with DCIS (p = 0.049). Post-RT measures of anxiety and overall wellbeing were higher in patients with EIBC but differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Women with DCIS experience relatively less psychological morbidity than women with EIBC, pre- and post-RT.

Advanced Clinical Stage at Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Is Associated with Poorer Health-Related Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective

To describe the clinical stage in women diagnosed with breast cancer and the association between clinical stage and Health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Materials and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study involving women diagnosed with breast cancer. HRQoL was assessed with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast Cancer 23. The principal exposure was clinical stage (<IIB versus ≥IIB). Simple linear regression was performed and variables with p<0.20 were selected for the multiple linear regression. The final model was composed of statistically significant variables (p<0.05).

Results

In total, 302 women were included. The majority (58.9%) had been diagnosed with advanced stage cancer (≥IIB). Those at an advanced clinical stage had poorer role functioning (p=0.029), pain (p<0.001), and symptoms in the breast (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Advanced clinical stage at diagnosis was found to be associated with worse health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients.

Patient-reported outcome measures among breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional comparison between Malaysia and high-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-income countries (HICs) suggest that physical, emotional, and psychological needs are important in cancer care. To date, there have been few inconsistent descriptions of PROs in low-income and middle-income Asian countries. Using a standard questionnaire developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), we compared the perceived importance of PROs between patients in Malaysia and those in HICs and between clusters of Malaysian women.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients.

RESULTS

The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P < 0.001). Cluster analysis suggests that older, parous, Malaysian women, who were less likely to have received breast reconstructive surgery, were more likely to rate body image and satisfaction with the breast as very important outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the differences in PROs by cultural and socioeconomic settings could improve patient expectation of services and refine the assessment of cancer care outcomes.

Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions

Overdiagnosis, is defined as the diagnosis of a condition that, if unrecognized, would not cause symptoms or harm a patient during his or her lifetime, and it is increasingly acknowledged as a consequence of screening for cancer and other conditions. Because preventive care is a crucial component of primary care, which is delivered to the broad population, overdiagnosis in primary care is an important problem from a public health perspective and has far reaching implications. The scope of overdiagnosis as a result of services delivered in primary care is unclear, though overdiagnosis of indolent breast, prostate, thyroid, and lung cancers is well described and overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is also recognized. However, overdiagnosis is a known consequence of all screening and can be assumed to occur in many more clinical contexts. Overdiagnosis can harm patients by leading to overtreatment (with associated potential toxicities), diagnosis related anxiety or depression, and labeling, or through financial burden. Many entrenched factors facilitate overdiagnosis, including the growing use of advanced diagnostic technology, financial incentives, a medical culture that encourages greater use of tests and treatments, limitations in the evidence that obscure the understanding of diagnostic utility, use of non-beneficial screening tests, and the broadening of disease definitions. Efforts to reduce overdiagnosis are hindered by physicians' and patients' lack of awareness of the problem and by confusion about terminology, with overdiagnosis often conflated with related concepts. Clarity of terminology would facilitate physicians' understanding of the problem and the growth in evidence regarding its prevalence and downstream consequences in primary care. It is hoped that international coordination regarding diagnostic standards for disease definitions will also help minimize overdiagnosis in the future.

Treatment decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ: A mixed methods systematic review of women's experiences and information needs

OBJECTIVE

Decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is complex due to the heterogeneity of the disease. This study aimed to understand women's experience of making treatment decisions for DCIS, their information and support needs, and factors that influenced decisions.

METHODS

We searched six electronic databases, conference proceedings, and key authors. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria, and extracted findings. Thematic analysis was used to combine and summarise findings.

RESULTS

We identified six themes and 28 subthemes from 18 studies. Women with DCIS have knowledge deficits about DCIS, experience anxiety related to information given at diagnosis and the complexity of decision-making, and have misconceptions regarding risks and outcomes of treatment. Women's decisions are influenced by their understanding of risk, the clinical features of their DCIS, and the benefits and harms of treatment options. Women are dissatisfied with the decisional support available.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed and shared decision-making in this complex decision setting requires clear communication of information specific to DCIS and individual's, as well as decision support for patients and clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This approach would educate patients and clinicians, and assist clinicians in supporting patients to an evidence-based treatment plan that aligns with individual values and pReferences.