Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

Patient Preferences Influencing Treatment Decision-Making in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Germany, Italy, and Japan

Purpose

Patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are increasingly provided with different options, which may involve a sequence of different treatments and treatment modalities, and eligibility for certain adjuvant treatments depending upon pre-surgical and surgical outcomes. This study examined patient preferences around aspects of treatment decision-making in eBC.

Patients and Methods

A total of 452 patients with self-reported eBC in Germany (n=151), Italy (n=151), and Japan (n=150) completed an online survey about physician interactions and treatment side effects. The survey included best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess prioritization of 13 statements reflecting aspects of treatment decision-making. In a series of choice tasks, participants chose their most and least preferred options among subsets of 4 statements. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate BWS preference scores for each statement. BWS scores were based on the number of times a statement was chosen as most versus least preferred; scores total 100 for each patient.

Results

The most preferred aspects of treatment decision-making were "treatment aggressiveness matches personal risk" (mean BWS score = 13.49), "being told about what is coming" (13.18), deciding based on "own surgical outcome" (11.90), "avoiding unnecessary treatment" (10.35), and "involving in treatment decisions" (9.44). The least preferred aspects were "not being asked about treatment decisions along the way" (3.27) and "receiving the same treatment as other patients" (3.41). Patients in Japan preferred "being told about what is coming", "deciding based on own surgical outcome", "avoiding unnecessary treatment", and being "involved in decisions" more than patients in Italy and Germany. Patients in Germany were more satisfied with their physician interactions and care, although their outcomes were not always better than those in Italy and Japan.

Conclusion

Patients value individualized treatment tailored to their risk of recurrence and tolerance of side effects, highlighting the need for focused patient education about options, to encourage their engagement.

Integrated Electronic Health Record of Multidisciplinary Professionals Throughout the Cancer Care Pathway: A Pilot Study Exploring Patient-Centered Information in Breast Cancer Patients

Purpose

The aim of this pilot study was to first aggregate and then integrate the medical records of various healthcare professionals involved with breast cancer patients to reveal if and how patient-centered information is documented in multidisciplinary cancer care.

Patients and Methods

We aggregated 20 types of medical records from various healthcare professionals such as physicians, nurses and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) throughout three breast cancer patients' care pathways in a department of breast surgery at a university hospital. Purposeful sampling was used, and three cases were examined. The number of integrated type of records was 14, 14, 17 in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. We manually annotated and analyzed them exploratively using a thematic analysis. The tags were produced using both a deductive template approach and a data-driven inductive approach. All records were then given tags. We defined patient-centered information related tags and biomedical information related tags and then analyzed for if and how patient-centered information was documented.

Results

The number of patient-centered information related tags accounted for 30%, 30% and 20% of the total in case 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In all cases, patient-centered information was distributed across various medical records. The Progress Note written by doctors provided much of the patient-centered information, while other records contained information not described elsewhere in the Progress Notes. The records of nurses and AHPs included more patient-centered information than the doctors' notes. Each piece of patient-centered information was documented in fragments providing from each of the healthcare professionals' viewpoints.

Conclusion

The documented information throughout the breast cancer care pathway in the cases examined was dominated by biomedical information. However, our findings suggest that integrating fragmented patient-centered information from various healthcare professionals' medical records produces holistic patient-centered information from multiple perspectives and thus may facilitate an enhanced multidisciplinary patient-centered care.

Training Undergraduate Medical Students in Shared Decision Making: A Systematic Review

In the field of healthcare delivery, shared decision making (SDM) refers to a collaborative process, wherein both patients and the healthcare professionals mutually work to make informed and consensus decisions with reference to the kind of medical care that will be administered to patients. The purpose of the current review is to explore SDM in health care, ascertain the role of medical education, and identify the ways to train and assess undergraduate medical students in competencies pertaining to SDM. An extensive search of all materials related to the topic was carried out on the PubMed and Google Scholar search engines and a total of 29 articles were selected based on their suitability with the current review objectives and analyzed. Keywords used in the search include learning resources in the title alone only (viz. shared decision making [ti] AND patient [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND medical education [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti] AND self-assessment [ti]; shared decision making [ti]; shared decision making [ti]). In the domain of medical education, the promotion of SDM essentially will require a multipronged approach to enable its integration into the medical curriculum. However, we must remember that mere teaching-learning methods would not improve it unless they are supplemented with assessment methods, otherwise, we will fail to deliver sustained results. In conclusion, SDM in medical education and healthcare industry represents a transformative shift from the traditional paradigm to a patient-centered approach that empowers both patients and healthcare providers, including budding medical students. The need of the hour is to advocate and encourage structured integration of SDM in the medical curriculum and support the same with periodic assessments.

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations

BACKGROUND

Physician treatment preference may influence how risks are communicated in prostate cancer consultations. We identified persuasive language used when describing cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects in relation to a physician's recommendation for aggressive (surgery/radiation) or nonaggressive (active surveillance/watchful waiting) treatment.

METHODS

A qualitative analysis was performed on transcribed treatment consultations of 40 men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer across 10 multidisciplinary providers. Quotes pertaining to cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects were randomized. Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations from isolated blinded quotes. Testing characteristics of consensus predictions against the physician's treatment recommendation were reported. Coders then identified persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment for each quote. Frequencies of persuasive strategies favoring aggressive/nonaggressive treatment were reported. Logistic regression quantified associations between persuasive strategies and physician treatment recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 496 quotes about cancer prognosis (n = 127), life expectancy (n = 51), and side effects (n = 318) were identified. The accuracy of predicting treatment recommendation based on individual quotes containing persuasive language (n = 256/496, 52%) was 91%. When favoring aggressive treatment, persuasive language downplayed side effect risks and amplified cancer risk (recurrence, progression, or mortality). Significant predictors (P < 0.05) of aggressive treatment recommendation included favorable side effect interpretation, downplaying side effects, and long time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity. When favoring nonaggressive treatment, persuasive language amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. Significant predictors of nonaggressive treatment recommendation included unfavorable side effect interpretation, favorable interpretation of cancer risk, and short time horizon for cancer risk due to longevity.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their preferred treatment, regardless of whether their recommendation is appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should quantify risk so patients can judge potential harm without solely relying on persuasive language.

HIGHLIGHTS

Physicians use persuasive language favoring their treatment recommendation when communicating risks of prostate cancer treatment, which may influence a patient's treatment choice.Coders predicted physician treatment recommendations based on isolated, randomized quotes about cancer prognosis, life expectancy, and side effects with 91% accuracy.Qualitative analysis revealed that when favoring nonaggressive treatment, physicians used persuasive language that amplified side effect risks and downplayed cancer risk. When favoring aggressive treatment, physicians did the opposite.Providers should be cognizant of using persuasive strategies and aim to provide quantified assessments of risk that are jointly interpreted with the patient so that patients can make evidence-based conclusions regarding risks without solely relying on persuasive language.

Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021. A validated 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was employed to extract data in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 134 guidelines. Only 46/134 (34.3 %) mentioned SDM. Fifteen (11.1 %) made clear, precise and actionable recommendations, while 9/134 (6.7 %) indicated the strength of the SDM-related recommendations. CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews reported SDM more often than those based on consensus or reviews (35.9 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.031). Guidelines that reported following quality tools (i.e., AGREE II) more commonly commented about SDM than when it was not reported (75.0 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Most of the CRC and anal treatment guidelines did not mention SDM and it was superficial. Guidelines based on systematic reviews and those using quality tools demonstrated better reporting of SDM. Recommendations about SDM in these guidelines merit urgent improvement.

Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby patients and clinicians jointly deliberate on the best treatment option that takes into account patients' preferences and values. In breast cancer care, different treatment options have become available to patients in the last decade. Various interventions, including patient decision aids (PtDAs), have been designed to promote SDM in this disease area. This study aimed at investigating the factors that influence the successful adoption and implementation of SDM interventions in real-world healthcare delivery settings.

METHODS

A scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted for the period 2006-2021 to analyse the support for SDM interventions and their adoption in breast cancer clinical practice. The interpretation of findings was based on the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 studies were included for data synthesis, with more than 70% published since 2017. The availability of SDM tools does not automatically translate into their actual use in clinical settings. Factors related to users' co-creation, the clinical team's attitude and knowledge, organisational support and regulatory provisions facilitate the adoption of SDM interventions. However, overlooking aspects such as the re-organisation of care pathways, patient characteristics, and assigning of resources (human, financial, and facilities) can hinder implementation efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the mounting evidence on the efficacy of SDM interventions, knowledge to support their sustained implementation in daily care is still limited, albeit results show an increasing interest in strategies that facilitate their uptake in breast cancer care over time. These findings highlight different strategies that can be used to embed SDM interventions in clinical practice. Future work should investigate which approaches are more effective in light of organisational conditions and external factors, including an evaluation of costs and healthcare system settings.

Intervention to reduce age bias in medical students' decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer: A novel approach to bias training

Objectives: Despite NICE guidelines to 'treat people with invasive breast cancer, irrespective of age, with surgery and appropriate systemic therapy, rather than endocrine therapy alone', older patients receive differential treatment and experience worse outcomes. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and potentially 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 nor, consequentially, has removing age bias been considered as an approach to improving outcomes. Many organizations carry out bias training with the aim of reducing negative impacts from biased decision making, yet the few evaluations of these interventions have mostly seen small or negative effects. This study explores whether a novel intervention to address age bias leads to better quality decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer.Methods: An online study compared medical students' treatment recommendations for older breast cancer patients and the reasoning for their decision making before and after a novel bias training intervention. Thirty-one medical students participated in the study.Results: The results show that the bias training intervention led medical students to make better quality decisions for older breast cancer patients. The quality of decision making was measured by decreases in age-based decision making and increased efforts to include patients in decision making. These results suggest there is value in exploring whether if anti-bias training interventions could usefully be applied in other areas of practice where older patients experience poorer outcomes.Conclusions: This study evidences that bias training improves the quality of decision making by medical students in respect of older breast cancer patients. The study findings show promise that this novel approach to bias training might usefully be applied to all medical practitioners making treatment recommendations for older patients.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

The Role of Nurse on the Treatment Decision Support for Older People with Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background: The number of older adults with cancer is increasing worldwide. The role of nurses in supporting patients' decision-making is expanding, as this process is fraught with complexity and uncertainty due to comorbidities, frailty, cognitive decline, etc., in older adults with cancer. The aim of this review was to examine the contemporary roles of oncology nurses in the treatment decision-making process in older adults with cancer. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Of the 3029 articles screened, 56 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 13 were included in the review. We identified three themes regarding nurses' roles in the decision-making process for older adults with cancer: accurate geriatric assessments, provision of available information, and advocacy. Nurses conduct geriatric assessments to identify geriatric syndromes, provide appropriate information, elicit patient preferences, and communicate efficiently with patients and caregivers, promoting physicians. Time constraints were cited as a barrier to fulfilling nurses' roles. Conclusions: The role of nurses is to elicit patients' broader health and social care needs to facilitate patient-centered decision-making, respecting their preferences and values. Further research focusing on the role of nurses that considers diverse cancer types and healthcare systems is needed.

Guidance documents for colorectal and anal cancer treatment: A systematic quality and reporting assessment

AIM

Evidence-based medicine is essential for clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) ought to follow a consistent methodology to underpin high-quality healthcare. We systematically analysed the quality and reporting of colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer CPGs and CSs.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and online sources (59 professional society websites and eight guideline databases) were systematically searched following prospective registration (PROSPERO no. CRD42021286146) by two reviewers independently, without language restrictions. CPGs and CSs about CRC and anal cancer treatment were included from January 2018 to November 2021 and were assessed using the AGREE II tool (per cent of maximum score) and the RIGHT tool (per cent of total 35 items) for quality and reporting respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall quality and reporting of the 59 guidelines analysed were 55.0% (interquartile range 47.0-62.0) and 58% (interquartile range 50.0-67.9), respectively, with a proportion scoring less than half (<50%) for quality (20/59, 33.9%) and reporting (15/59, 25.4%). Guidance reported that following AGREE II methodology scored better on average than that without (AGREE II 77.7% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 50.0% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.001). Guidelines based on systematic reviews had better quality and reporting on average than those based on consensus (AGREE II 56.5% vs. 46.6%, P = 0.001; RIGHT 36.9% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

The quality and reporting of colorectal and anal cancer treatment CPGs and CSs were poor. Despite AGREE II and RIGHT inherent methodological limitations, few high-quality guidelines were found. Despite wide variability in scoring different domains, they merit urgent improvement in all areas. It has also been demonstrated that CPGs and CSs should be underpinned by systematic reviews collecting the best available clinical research findings.

Use of prognostic gene expression profiling tests in primary breast cancer treatment: a German real-world patient survey

Aims: In primary breast cancer, gene expression profiling tests can support adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. Real-world test use in Germany was investigated in an online survey of female breast cancer patients (n = 475). Materials & methods: Relationships between three groups were examined for clinical and statistical relevance: no test indication (n = 353), test indication and tested (n = 65), and test indication but not tested (n = 57). Results: A total of 47% of participants with a test indication were not tested. Test rates increased by 23% from 2012-2018 (49%) to 2019-2021 (60%). A total of 65% of patients without testing received chemotherapy, whereas only 38% of tested patients received chemotherapy. Conclusion: The use of gene expression profiling tests correlates with a real-world chemotherapy reduction. Gene expression profiling testing may improve patient confidence in the decision for or against chemotherapy.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in guidelines about colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to systematically evaluate quality of shared decision-making (SDM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Search for CRC screening guidances was from 2010 to November 2021 in EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus and CDSR, and the World Wide Web. Three independent reviewers and an arbitrator rated the quality of each guidance using a SDM quality assessment tool (maximum score: 31). Reviewer agreement was 0.88.

RESULTS

SDM appeared in 41/83 (49.4%) CPGs and 9/19 (47.4%) CSs. None met all the quality criteria, and 51.0% (52/102) failed to meet any quality items. Overall compliance was low (mean 1.63, IQR 0-2). Quality was better in guidances published after 2015 (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p = 0.048) and when the term SDM was specifically reported (mean 4.5, IQR 2.5-4.5 vs. mean 0.5, IQR 0-1.5; p < 0.001). CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews showed better SDM quality than consensus (mean 1, IQR 0-3 vs. mean 0, IQR 0-2, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

SDM quality was suboptimal and mentioned in less than half of the guidances, and recommendations were scarce. Guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based SDM recommendations in guidances to underpin the translation of evidence into practice.

Definition of a tool to assess shared decision-making (SDM) on women with breast cancer: A value-based approach

Background and Aims

In oncology, there is increasing talk of personalized treatment and shared decision-making (SDM), especially when multiple treatment options are available with different outcomes depending on patient preference. The present study aimed to define the set of main dimensions and relative tools to assess the Value brought to patients from a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway structured according to a dynamic SDM framework.

Methods

Starting from our previous systematic review of the literature, a deep search of the main evidence-based and already validated questionnaires was carried out. In the second phase, to corroborate this grid, a Delphi survey was conducted to assess each questionnaire identified for each dimension, against the following seven value-based criteria: Clinical Benefit, Safety, Care Team Well Being, Patient Reported Outcomes Measures, Green Oncology, Impact on Health Budget, and Genomic Profile.

Results

The resulting 7-dimension questionnaire is composed of 72 questions. Of these, some quantitatively and objectively assess the evolution of the patient's disease state, whereas others aim to ask patients about their active involvement in decisions affecting them and to investigate whether they were free to explore their preferences. Furthermore, to frame the analyzed phenomenon at the right time, for each questionnaire section, the specific, evidence-based timing of administration is indicated.

Conclusion

The resulting questionnaire is validated in its entirety and it is composed of a set of questions and relative time point for data collections to assess the Value brought to patients undertaking a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway, structured according to a dynamic SDM framework. It constitutes a quantitative instrument to integrate patient centeredness with a personalized perspective in the care management of women with breast cancer.

Applying VitalTalkTM Techniques to Best Case/Worst Case Training to Increase Scalability and Improve Surgeon Confidence in Shared Decision-making

OBJECTIVE

Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote shared decision-making for high-risk procedures near the end of life. This study aimed to increase scalability of a BC/WC training program and measure its impact on surgeon confidence in and perceived importance of the methodology.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort pre-post study; December 2018 to January 2019.

SETTING

Multi-center tertiary care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-eight resident surgeons from general surgery and otolaryngology.

RESULTS

Learners were 24 to 37 years old with 52% in post graduate year 1 to 2. Although learners encountered high-stakes communication (HSC) frequently (3.6 [0.7] on 5-point Likert scale), most reported no HSC training in medical school (74.5%) or residency (87.5%). BC/WC training was accomplished with an instructor to learner ratio of 1-to-5.3. After training, learner confidence improved on all measured communication skills on a 5-point scale (e.g., exploring patient's values increased from 3.6 [0.8] to 4.1 [0.6], p = <0.0001); average within-person improvement was 0.72 (0.6) points across all skills. Perceived importance improved across all skills (e.g., basing a recommendation on patient's values increased from 4.4 [0.8] to 4.8 [0.5], p = 0.0009); average within-person improvement was 0.46 (0.5) points across all skills. Learners reported this training would likely help them in future interactions (4.4 [0.73] on 5-point scale) and 95.2% recommended it be offered to resident physicians in other residency programs and to attending surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Formal training in BC/WC increases learners' perception of both the importance of HSC skills and their confidence in exercising those skills in clinical practice. VitalTalk^TM methodology permitted scaling training to 5.3 learners per instructor and was highly recommended for other surgeons. Ongoing training, such as this, may support more patient-centered decision-making and care.

Shared Decision-making in the U.S.: Evidence exists, but implementation science must now inform policy for real change to occur

Shared decision making (SDM) is defined as an approach in which clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and in which patients are supported to consider options to achieve informed preferences [1]. Over the past decade, SDM has been increasingly recognized as a component of value-based care in the US. There is greater acceptance overall that SDM is a key strategy for achieving patient-centered care, enhancing patient safety, and achieving the triple aim of better health, better care, and lower costs [2]. Essential elements of SDM include recognizing and acknowledging that a decision is required; knowing and understanding the best available evidence on risks and benefits; and incorporating the patient's values and preferences into the decision [3]. This paper provides an update of our previous review of SDM in the US published in 2017. We describe changes in healthcare policies to support SDM at the federal and state levels, the integration of SDM into clinical practice, and the role of implementation science to advance SDM. Finally, we discuss potential next steps to inform policies for SDM and facilitate uptake of SDM in clinical practice.

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus for the screening of breast cancer: A systematic appraisal of their quality and reporting

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are being promoted to provide high-quality healthcare guidance. This systematic review has assessed the breast cancer (BC) screening CPGs and CSs quality and reporting.

METHODS

A search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and CDSR), 12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites was performed without language restrictions from January 2017 to June 2020, following prospective registration (Prospero no.: CRD42020203807). AGREE II (% of maximum score) and RIGHT (% of total 35 items) appraised quality and reporting individually, extracting data in duplicate; reviewer agreement was 98% and 93%, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty guidances with median overall quality and reporting 51% (interquartile range [IQR] 39-63) and 48% (IQR 35-65), respectively. Twenty-two (55%) and 20 (50%) did not reach the minimum standards (scores <50%). The guidances that deployed systematic reviews had better quality (74.2% vs. 46.9%; p = 0.001) and reporting (80.5% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Guidances reporting a tool referral scored better (AGREE II: 72.8% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.002; RIGHT: 75.0% vs. 46.9%, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

BC screening CPGs and CSs suffered poor quality and reporting. More than half did not reach the minimum standards. They would improve if systematic reviews were used to underpin the recommendations made.

A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist

Background

Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer in women. The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on breast cancer has been shown to be heterogeneous. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of breast cancer CPGs published in years 2018-2020, using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) as well as websites of guideline organizations for CPGs on breast cancer published between 2018 and 2020. We used the RIGHT checklist to evaluate the reporting quality of the included guidelines by assessing whether the CPGs adhered to each item of the checklist and calculated the proportions of appropriately reported RIGHT checklist items. We also presented the adherence reporting rates for each guideline and the mean rates for each of the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist.

Results

A total of 45 guidelines were included. Eighteen (40.0%) guidelines had an overall reporting rate below 50% and only three (6.7%) reported more than 80% of the items. The domains “Basic information” and “Background” had the highest reporting rates (75.9% and 62.5%, respectively). The mean reporting rates of the domains “Evidence”, “Recommendation”, “Review and quality assurance”, “Funding and declaration and management of interests” and “Other information” were 42.7%, 53.0%, 33.3%, 45.0%, and 44.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

The reporting quality varied among guidelines for breast cancer, showing the need for improvement in reporting the contents. Guideline developers should pay more attention to reporting the evidence, review and quality assurance, and funding and declaration and management of interests in future.

Success Factors and Barriers in Combining Personalized Medicine and Patient Centered Care in Breast Cancer. Results from a Systematic Review and Proposal of Conceptual Framework

Breast Cancer (BC) is the leading cause of death due to cancer in women. Ensuring equitable, quality-assured and effective care has increased the complexity of BC management. This systematic review reports on the state-of-the art of available literature investigating the enactment of personalized treatment and patient-centered care models in BC clinical practice, building a framework for the delivery of personalized BC care within a Patient-Centered model. Databases were searched for articles (from the inception to December 2020) reporting on Patient-Centered or Personalized Medicine BC management models, assessing success factors or limits. Out of 1885 records, 25 studies were included in our analysis. The main success factors include clearly defined roles and responsibilities within a multi-professional collaboration, appropriate training programs and adequate communication strategies and adopting a universal genomic language to improve patients' involvement in the decision-making process. Among detected barriers, delays in the use of genetic testing were linked to the lack of public reimbursement schemes and of clear indications in timing and appropriateness. Overall, both care approaches are complementary and necessary to effectively improve BC patient management. Our framework attempts to bridge the gap in assigning a central role played by shared decision-making, still scarcely investigated in literature.

Review of Variables Associated With Positive Surgical Margins Using Scout Reflector Localizations for Breast Conservation Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate factors contributing to positive surgical margins associated with reflector guidance for patients undergoing breast conserving therapy for malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective IRB-approved review of our institutional database was performed for malignant breast lesions preoperatively localized from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. The following data was recorded using electronic medical records: lesion type and grade, lesion location, reflector and wire placement modality, use of intraoperative ultrasound, margin status, patient age, family history, BMI, and final pathology. Statistical analysis was performed with univariate summary statistics and logistic regression. P < .05 was significant.

RESULTS

A total of 606 image-guided pre-surgical localizations were performed for lumpectomies of breast malignancies. A total of 352 of 606 (58%) wire localizations and 254 of 606 (42%) SCOUT reflector localizations were performed. Sixty out of 352 (17%) of wire-localized patients had positive surgical margins, whereas forty-eight out of 254 (19%) of reflector-localized patients had positive surgical margins. (OR = 1.12, P value: .59). For reflector guided cases, the use of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) was associated with decreased positive margin status (OR = 0 .28, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.58]) while in situ disease was associated with increased positive margin status (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 3.75]). No association between modality used for localization (mammography vs. ultrasound) and positive margin status was observed (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.33, 1.19]). No association between positive margins and age, family history, tumor location and BMI was observed.

CONCLUSION

For reflector guided surgeries, the use of IOUS was associated with decreased positive margins, by contrast the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ was associated with increased positive margins. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical outcomes for reflector-guided localization compared to wire localizations of the breast.

Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a key component of evidence-based and patient-centred care. The aim of this study is to systematically review the quality of SDM proposals in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) concerning breast cancer (BC) screening.

METHODS

Guidances were identified, without language restrictions, using a prospectively planned systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and guideline websites) from January 2010 to August 2020. Duplicate data extraction used a 31-item SDM quality assessment tool; reviewer agreement was 98%.

RESULTS

SDM appeared only in 38 (49.4%) (33/68 CPGs, 4/9 CSs) documents (overall compliance with the quality tool: mean 5.74, IQR 3-8). CPGs and CSs specifically mentioning the term SDM (n = 12) had higher quality (mean 6.8, IQR 4-9 vs. mean 2.1, IQR 0-3; P = 0.001). No differences were found in mean quality comparing CPGs with CSs (3 vs. 1.6; P = 0.634), use of systematic review (4.2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.929) and publication in a journal (4 vs. 1.9; P = 0.094). Guidances with SDM were more recently reported than those without it (mean 41 vs. 57 months; P = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

More than half of all the guidelines did not meet SDM quality criteria. Those that explored it were more recently reported. There is an urgent need for promoting SDM in guidances concerning BC screening issued by institutions, professional associations and medical journals.

The Use of Real-World Evidence for Oral Chemotherapies in Breast Cancer

Almost all patients with breast cancer will eventually receive chemotherapy drugs, the majority of which are administered as IV infusions. Real-world evidence indicates that while current treatment paradigms vary considerably from guideline recommendations, there is an increasing trend towards a preference for oral oncolytics among patients with breast cancer. Recent data have shown that oral anticancer therapeutics represent 25% of the oncology drug market share and that there is a high demand for these agents. Therefore, oral formulations of chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel are currently under development. Although oral oncolytics are associated with several advantages over conventional intravenous drugs, maintaining adherence to therapy is a major barrier in achieving improved outcomes with these agents. Advanced practitioners can facilitate improved adherence to oral oncolytics by integrating evidence into practice to support better education and communication strategies to address patient concerns, overcome key hurdles, and ultimately, empower patients.

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale.

RESULTS

The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36-4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51-4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37-3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88-4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients' paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are adequately promoting shared decision making (SDM).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the recommendations about SDM in CPGs and CSs concerning breast cancer (BC) treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Following protocol registration (Prospero no.: CRD42018106643), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2010 to December 2019.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were selected whether published in a journal or in an online document.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was developed and used to extract data in duplicate.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 167 relevant CPGs (139) and CSs (28); SDM was reported in only 40% of the studies. SDM was reported more often in recent publications after 2015 (42/101 (41.6 %) vs 46/66 (69.7 %), P = .0003) but less often in medical journal publications (44/101 (43.5 %) vs 17/66 (25.7 %), P = .009). In CPGs and CSs with SDM, only 8/66 (12%) met one-fifth (6 of 31) of the quality items; only 14/66 (8%) provided clear and precise SDM recommendations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

SDM descriptions and recommendations in CPGs and CSs concerning BC treatment need improvement. SDM was more frequently reported in CPGs and CSs in recent years, but surprisingly it was less often covered in medical journals, a feature that needs attention.