Search

Background Chemotherapy improves outcomes for high risk early breast cancer (EBC) patients but is infrequently offered to older individuals. This study determined if there are fit older patients with high-risk disease who may benefit from chemotherapy. Methods A multicentre, prospective, observational study was performed to determine chemotherapy (±trastuzumab) usage and survival and quality-of-life outcomes in EBC patients aged ≥70 years. Propensity score-matching adjusted for variation in baseline age, fitness and tumour stage. Results Three thousands four hundred sixteen women were recruited from 56 UK centres between 2013 and 2018. Two thousands eight hundred eleven (82%) had surgery. 1520/2811 (54%) had high-risk EBC and 2059/2811 (73%) were fit. Chemotherapy was given to 306/1100 (27.8%) fit patients with high-risk EBC. Unmatched comparison of chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy demonstrated reduced metastatic recurrence risk in high-risk patients(hazard ratio [HR] 0.36 [95% CI 0.19–0.68]) and in 541 age, stage and fitness-matched patients(adjusted HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.20–0.92]) but no benefit to overall survival (OS) or breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in either group. Chemotherapy improved survival in women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cancer (OS: HR 0.20 [95% CI 0.08–0.49];BCSS: HR 0.12 [95% CI 0.03–0.44]).Transient negative quality-of-life impacts were observed. Conclusions Chemotherapy was associated with reduced risk of metastatic recurrence, but survival benefits were only seen in patients with ER-negative cancer. Quality-of-life impacts were significant but transient. Trial Registration ISRCTN 46099296

Background\ud \ud Rates of surgery and adjuvant therapy for breast cancer vary widely between breast units. This may contribute to differences in survival. This cluster RCT evaluated the impact of decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women with breast cancer, to ascertain whether DESIs influenced quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choice.\ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A multicentre cluster RCT compared the use of two DESIs against usual care in treatment decision-making in older women (aged at least ≥70 years) with breast cancer. Each DESI comprised an online algorithm, booklet, and brief decision aid to inform choices between surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. The primary outcome was quality of life. Secondary outcomes included decision quality measures, survival, and treatment choice.\ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud A total of 46 breast units were randomized (21 intervention, 25 usual care), recruiting 1339 women (670 intervention, 669 usual care). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months after the baseline assessment on intention-to-treat analysis (difference –0.20, 95 per cent confidence interval (C.I.) –2.69 to 2.29; P = 0.900). In women offered a choice of primary endocrine therapy versus surgery plus endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm (94 versus 74 per cent; P = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with a primary endocrine therapy rate among women with oestrogen receptor-positive disease of 21.0 per cent in the intervention versus 15.4 per cent in usual-care sites (difference 5.5 (95 per cent C.I. 1.1 to 10.0) per cent; P = 0.029). The chemotherapy rate was 10.3 per cent at intervention versus 14.8 per cent at usual-care sites (difference –4.5 (C.I. –8.0 to 0) per cent; P = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms.\ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud The use of DESIs in older women increases knowledge of breast cancer treatment options, facilitates shared decision-making, and alters treatment selection.\ud \ud \ud Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2015-004220-61 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/), ISRCTN46099296 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Background\ud \ud In the UK there is variation in the treatment of older women with breast cancer, with up to 40% receiving primary endocrine therapy (PET), which is associated with inferior survival. Case mix and patient choice may explain some variation in practice but clinician preference may also be important.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A multicentre prospective cohort study of women aged >70 with operable breast cancer. Patient characteristics (health status, age, tumour characteristics, treatment allocation and decision-making preference) were analysed to identify whether treatment variation persisted following case-mix adjustment. Expected case-mix adjusted surgery rates were derived by logistic regression using the variables age, co-morbidity, tumour stage and grade. Concordance between patients’ preferred and actual decision-making style was assessed and associations between age, treatment and decision-making style calculated.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Women (median age 77, range 70–102) were recruited from 56 UK breast units between 2013 and 2018. Of 2854/3369 eligible women with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer, 2354 were treated with surgery and 500 with PET. Unadjusted surgery rates varied between hospitals, with 23/56 units falling outside the 95% confidence intervals on funnel plots. Adjusting for case mix reduced, but did not eliminate, this variation between hospitals (10/56 units had practice outside the 95% confidence intervals). Patients treated with PET had more patient-centred decisions compared to surgical patients (42.2% vs 28.4%, p

In 2011, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) published the SIOG 10 Priorities Initiative, which defined top priorities for the improvement of the care of older adults with cancer worldwide.' Substantial scientific, clinical, and educational progress has been made in line with these priorities and international health policy developments have occurred, such as the shift of emphasis by WHO from communicable to non-communicable diseases and the adoption by the UN of its Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Therefore, SIOG has updated its priority list. The present document addresses four priority domains: education, clinical practice, research, and strengthening collaborations and partnerships. In this Policy Review, we reflect on how these priorities would apply in different economic settings, namely in high-income countries versus low-income and middle-income countries. SIOG hopes that it will offer guidance for international and national endeavours to provide adequate universal health coverage for older adults with cancer, who represent a major and rapidly growing group in global epidemiology.