Comparison of health utility weights among elderly patients receiving breast-conserving surgery plus hormonal therapy with or without radiotherapy

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

The effect of adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in elderly women with T1-2N0 estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) results in better survival among women ≥ 70 years with T1-2N0 estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients who met the inclusion criteria between 2010 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Univariate and Multivariate Cox proportional analysis were used to identify the risk factors for overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the prognosis of patients with or without adjuvant RT. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to perform a 1:1 matched case-control analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4201 women were included in this study, with a median follow-up time of 64 months (range: 0-107 months). Of these patients, 2811 (66.9%) received adjuvant RT, while 1390 (33.1%) did not. Patients who did not receive adjuvant RT were more likely to be aged ≥ 80 years old, have a single marital status, larger tumors, and HER2-positive status (p < 0.05). Multivariate Cox proportional analysis indicated that receiving adjuvant RT was an independent factor associated with better OS and BCSS before and after PSM (P < 0.001). The survival curves before and after PSM showed that patients achieved an improved OS and BCSS from adjuvant RT (P < 0.005). In the subgroup analysis, there was no survival benefit trend from adjuvant RT in patients who were ≥ 80 years, or those with T1mic+T1a, T1b tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RT following BCS in older women with T1-2N0 ER-negative breast cancer is associated with improve OS and BCSS. However, the potential benefit may be relatively limited for patients ≥ 80 years, or those with T1mic+T1a, T1b tumors.

The addition of radiotherapy to breast-conserving surgery improves survival for elderly patients with early breast cancer

Purpose

To evaluate whether adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was associated with better survival among elderly (≥70 years) breast cancer patients with T1-2N0 and estrogen receptor (ER) positive disease.

Methods

We included patients who met the inclusion criteria between 2010 and 2014 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Patients were subdivided into three groups based on surgery and RT: BCS alone, BCS plus RT, and refusal of RT. The primary outcomes were breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). Chi-squared tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and Multivariate Cox regression analysis were used for statistical analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the potential selection bias.

Results

A total of 26586 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up was 66 months. Of these patients, 15591 (58.6%) patients received RT, RT was recommended but not performed due to patient refusal for 1270 (4.8%) patients, and RT was not recommended for 9725 (36.6%) patients. The 5-year BCSS was 98.3% for patients receiving RT, 97.1% for patients refusal of RT, and 96.4% for patients not recommended RT (P<0.001). The 5-year OS was 88.6% for patients receiving RT, 77.6% for patients who refused RT, and 72.1% for patients not recommended RT (P<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that patients who received adjuvant RT after BCS had significantly better BCSS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.523, 95%confidence interval [CI] 0.447-0.612, P<0.001) and OS (HR 0.589, 95%CI 0.558-0.622, P<0.001) compared to those without RT. A total of 7721 pairs of patients were matched successfully between those with and without RT using PSM. The results also showed that patients who received RT after BCS had significantly better BCSS (HR 562, 95%CI 0.467-0.676, P<0.001) and OS (HR 0.612, 95%CI 0.0.575-0.652, P<0.001) compared to those without RT.

Conclusions

These data suggest that individual counseling is important for treatment decision-making in elderly breast cancer patients with T1-2N0 and ER-positive disease. Given the relatively lower toxicity of modern RT techniques, adjuvant RT should be recommended in patients with high life expectancy.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of radiotherapy among older women with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus hormonal therapy with radiotherapy, compared to hormonal therapy alone among women 66 and older with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer in the United States (US).

METHODS

This study was conducted from a U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services perspective and an eight-year time horizon. Both costs (2020 US$) and health utilities (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) were obtained from retrospective studies using the SEER linked with Medicare and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the addition of radiotherapy to hormonal therapy versus hormonal therapy alone after BCS was estimated by an unbiased doubly robust estimator. Sensitivity analyses were conducted through bootstrapping to estimate credible intervals.

RESULTS

The addition of radiotherapy to hormonal therapy after BCS yielded the highest clinical benefits (2.66 QALYs) and costs ($19,424.27) compared to its hormonal therapy alone after BCS (0.77 QALYS; $2,028.58). The ICER was estimated to be $9,174.94/QALY. Sensitivity analyses did not change the direction of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The results implicated that the combination of radiotherapy and hormonal therapy is cost-effective in the US.

Health-related quality of life among elderly breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy: a U.S Medicare population-based study

OBJECTIVES

The evidence regarding the impact of individual adjuvant endocrine therapies (AET) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the type of AET and HRQoL and to examine the relationship between HRQoL and one-year mortality among women with breast cancer in the USA.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study used the 2006-2017 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey database to identify older women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Multivariate linear regressions were used to assess the association between types of AET (anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, and tamoxifen) and HRQoL scores (physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS)). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to predict the impact of PCS and MCS on one-year mortality.

RESULTS

Out of 3537 older women with breast cancer, anastrozole was the most commonly prescribed (n = 1945, 55.0%). Regarding PCS, there was no significant difference between the four AET agents. Higher MCS scores, which indicate better HRQoL, were reported in patients treated with anastrozole (vs. letrozole [β = 1.26, p = 0.007] and exemestane [β = 2.62, p = 0.005) and tamoxifen (vs. letrozole [β = 1.49, p = 0.010] and exemestane [β = 2.85, p = 0.004]). Lower PCS and MCS scores were associated with higher one-year mortality, regardless of type of AET initiated, except for tamoxifen in MCS.

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant difference in physical HRQoL scores between AET agents, anastrozole and tamoxifen were associated with better mental HRQoL scores.

A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Health utility values (HUVs) are important inputs to the cost-utility analysis of breast cancer interventions.

PURPOSE

Provide a catalog of breast cancer-related published HUVs across different stages of breast cancer and treatment interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Cochrane databases (2005-2017).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in English that reported mean or median HUVs using direct or indirect methods of utility elicitation for breast cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent reviewers extracted data on a preestablished and piloted form; disagreements were resolved through discussion.

DATA ANALYSIS

Mixed-effects meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood modeling was conducted for intervention type, stage of breast cancer, and typical clinical and treatment trajectory of breast cancer patients to assess the effect of study characteristics (i.e., sample size, utility elicitation method, and respondent type) on HUVs.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. Most articles (n = 52, 66%) derived HUVs using the EQ-5D. Patients with advanced-stage breast cancer (range, 0.08 to 0.82) reported lower HUVs as compared with patients with early-stage breast cancer (range, 0.58 to 0.99). The meta-regression analysis found that undergoing chemotherapy and surgery and radiation, being diagnosed with an advanced stage of breast cancer, and recurrent cancer were associated with lower HUVs. The members of the general public reported lower HUVs as compared with patients.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable heterogeneity in the study population, health states assessed, and utility elicitation methods.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a catalog of published HUVs related to breast cancer. The substantial heterogeneity in the health utility studies makes it challenging for researchers to choose which HUVs to use in cost-utility analyses for breast cancer interventions.

Effects of Postoperative Radiotherapy in Early Breast Cancer Patients Older than 75 Years: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Background: Currently, there is still some controversy regarding whether early breast cancer patients with a tumor size of ≤5 cm and 1-3 positive lymph nodes should undergo postoperative radiotherapy (PRT).

Materials and Methods: We obtained data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 database. Then, we conducted propensity score matching (PSM), according to the radiotherapy record. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were conducted to explore prognostic factors in breast cancer.

Results: A total of 6,777 patients aged 75+ years old were eligible and 2,361 patients were included after PSM. We found PRT could improve patient overall survival (OS) (P = 0.01, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.97). Subgroup analysis revealed PRT could improve OS in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) (P = 0.001, HR = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.76 - 0.94) or white patients (P =0.004, HR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77 - 0.95).

Conclusions: PRT may benefit for elderly women with early breast cancer, especially in HR+ patients or white patients. These findings may inform future optimized options whether elderly female patients with early breast cancer should undergo postoperative radiotherapy.