Search

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but often never will. As we cannot predict accurately which DCIS-lesions will or will not progress to IBC, almost all women with DCIS undergo breast-conserving surgery supplemented with radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. In some countries, endocrine treatment is prescribed as well. This implies many women with non-progressive DCIS undergo overtreatment. To reduce this, the LORD patient preference trial (LORD-PPT) tests whether mammographic active surveillance (AS) is safe by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between treatment and AS. For this, sufficient knowledge about DCIS is crucial. Therefore, we assessed women's DCIS knowledge in association with socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. LORD-PPT participants (N = 376) completed a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, risk perception, treatment choice and DCIS knowledge after being informed about their diagnosis and treatment options. 66 % of participants had poor knowledge (i.e., answered ≤3 out of 7 knowledge items correctly). Most incorrect answers involved overestimating the safety of AS and misunderstanding of DCIS prognostic risks. Overall, women with higher DCIS knowledge score perceived their risk of developing IBC as being somewhat higher than women with poorer knowledge (p = 0.049). Women with better DCIS knowledge more often chose surgery whilst most women with poorer knowledge chose active surveillance (p = 0.049). Our findings show that there is room for improvement of information provision to patients. Decision support tools for patients and clinicians could help to stimulate effective shared decision-making about DCIS management. • Low-risk DCIS is surgically treated, but not all will progress to breast cancer. • LORD trial: women can opt for conventional treatment or for active surveillance. • Adequate knowledge about DCIS is essential for patients to make an informed choice. • Overall DCIS knowledge about safety of active surveillance was poor. • DCIS knowledge level is associated with risk perception and treatment choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With growing concerns for the sustainability of the financial burden that health care--and especially cancer services--poses on the national budgets, the role of health economic analyses in coverage decisions is likely to grow. One of the strategies for the biomedical research field--also in oncology research--to foster coverage and health system implementation, is to anticipate this new role and to involve health technology assessment techniques earlier in various stages of translational research. In this article, we elaborate on the early involvement of health technology assessment in translational research and the concept of Coverage with Evidence Development in The Netherlands Cancer Institute and give two case examples that are currently ongoing: (1) tumour infiltrating lymphocytes therapy for metastatic melanoma; and (2) high-dose chemotherapy for BRCA1-like subgroup in triple-negative breast cancer. We conclude with recommendations for institutional policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes OECI working group on Health Economics and Cost Benefit in Oncology suggests four actions that are needed to improve alignment and integration between clinicians, researchers, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts and agencies: 1) HTA expertise is necessary close to or within the comprehensive cancer centres (CCC); 2) HTA expertise should be physically present throughout the translational research process; 3) Appropriate knowledge is necessary within the research staff; 4) Close cooperation between translational researchers, clinicians, and health economists guarantees clinical ownership. Fulfilling these conditions may help the translational research field in oncology to interact with agencies and efficiently move innovative technologies through the translational research stages into that of implementation and diffusion. This brings innovative treatments faster to the patient with a greater chance of reimbursement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Validated multigene signatures (MGS) provide additional prognostic information when evaluating clinical features of ER+, HER2− early breast cancer. We have studied the quantitative and qualitative impact of MGS on multidisciplinary team (MDT) recommendations.Methods:We prospectively recruited 75 ER+, HER2− breast cancer patients. Inclusion was based on biopsy assessment of grade, hormone receptor status, HER2, clinical tumour and nodal status. A fresh tissue sample was sent for MammaPrint (MP), TargetPrint analysis at surgery. Clinical risk was decided by the MDT in the absence of MP results and repeated following the collection of MP results. Decision changes were recorded and a health technology assessment was undertaken to compare cost effectiveness.Results:The majority of patients were assigned low to intermediate clinical risk by the MDT. According to MP, 76% were low risk. A very high correlation between local IHC and the TargetPrint assessment was shown. In over a third of patients, discordance between clinical and molecular risk was observed. Decision changes were recorded in half of these cases (18.6%) and resulted in two out of three patients not requiring chemotherapy. The use of MP was also found to be more cost effective.Conclusions:The multigene signature MP revealed clinical and molecular risk discordance in a third of patients. The impact of this on MDT recommendations was most profound in cases where few clinical risk factors were observed and enabled some women to forgo chemotherapy. The use of MGS is unlikely to have an impact in either clinically low-risk women or in patients with more than one relative indication for chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]