Search

Stephanie M Tomee,1 Winifred A Gebhardt,2 Jean-Paul PM de Vries,3 Victoria C Hamelinck,1 Jaap F Hamming,1 Jan HN Lindeman1 1Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, 3Department of Vascular Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Leiden, the Netherlands Background: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a progressive, generally symptomless disease that could ultimately result in a fatal rupture. Current guidelines advise conservative follow-up, and preventive surgical repair once the risk of rupture outweighs the cost of repair (55 mm in men). In developed countries, the majority of patients are diagnosed with AAAs less than 55 mm, and so enter a period of conservative surveillance. An important question is how patients perceive and cope with risk of rupture, AAA diagnosis and treatment, and presented AAA information. The goal of this study was to gain insight into patients’ perceptions of conservative treatment for a small AAA to increase patient satisfaction.Methods: We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews and used questionnaires measuring health-related quality of life (RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0), illness-perceptions (Illness Perception Questionnaire – Revised), and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Interviews were audio recorded and transcript contents were analyzed based on grounded theory. Mean scores of the questionnaires were compared to (population) reference groups.Results: This study included ten male patients under surveillance for a small AAA from two hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients expressed no fear for AAA rupture, and also reported low levels of anxiety and depression in both the interviews and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The presence of an AAA did not affect their social life or emotional well-being. The reported poorer physical health on RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 presumably reflected common presence of comorbidities. Participants stated to that they were content with the frequency and setup of AAA surveillance. However, they generally lacked knowledge about AAA disease and/or treatment options.Conclusion: Conservative AAA follow-up ensures patients that the risks of AAA disease are limited. The vascular surgeon is the most important source of AAA information to patients, and patients fully rely on their vascular surgeon to take control in AAA treatment. Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm, patient perceptions, patient preference, quality of life, interviews, patient-reported outcome measures

Background Older patients are believed to prefer a more passive role in treatment decision making, but studies reporting this relation were conducted over a decade ago or were retrospective. We prospectively compared younger (40-64 years) versus older (≥ 65 years) breast cancer patients' preferences for decision-making roles and their perceived actual roles. Patients and Methods A prospective multicenter study was conducted in Leiden, The Hague, and Tilburg over a 2-year period. Early-stage breast cancer patients were surveyed about their preferred and perceived decision-making roles (active, shared, or passive) concerning surgery type (breast-conserving vs. mastectomy) (n = 74), adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT, n = 43), and adjuvant hormonal therapy (aHT, n = 39). Results For all decisions, both age groups most frequently preferred a shared role before consultation, except for decisions about aHT, for which younger patients more commonly preferred an active role. The proportion of patients favoring an active or passive role in each decision was lower for the older than the younger patients, but none of the differences was significant. Regarding perceived actual roles, both groups most frequently reported an active role in the surgical decision after consultation. In deciding about both aCT and aHT, a larger proportion of older patients perceived having had a passive role compared to younger patients, and a greater proportion of younger patients perceived having been active. Again, differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Most older patients preferred to decide together with their clinician, but preferences varied widely. Older patients more often than younger patients perceived they had not been involved in decisions about systemic therapy. Clinicians should invite all patients to participate in decision making and elicit their preferred role.

In this review, the results of the FOCUS (Female breast cancer in the elderly: Optimizing Clinical guidelines USing clinico-pathological and molecular data) program are summarized. This study was originally designed with the aim to define guidelines for the treatment of older women with breast cancer. With data from several studies within FOCUS, a prediction model can be constructed. Such a model helps to define individualized treatment for older patients with breast cancer, taking into account tumour characteristics and patient-related factors. At a clinical level, this model can provide the physician and the patient with accurate prediction to assist on the decision making of treatment strategies: this results into individualized treatment, not based on one individual marker, but on different pillars related to the patient, the tumour and the most suitable, appropriate treatment.

As older women with breast cancer (BC) are underrepresented in trials, it is often unclear what represents the best treatment option for this patient group. To understand how oncologists approach the management of BC in older patients, we assessed their treatment recommendations.In an online survey, 106 surgical, 37 radiation and 31 medical oncologists provided a treatment recommendation for hypothetical patients aged70 years. Scenarios included loco-regional therapy with patient age varying at 76 and 84 years; systemic therapy with Karnofsky performance score varying at 90 and 50%; neo-adjuvant therapy; and adjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative BC.Participants would less often recommend breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy for an 84 versus a 76-year-old patient (56% versus 73%, p = 0.001). They would more often accept omission of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in older than in younger patients, if the patient wished to avoid this therapy (26% versus 4%, p 0.001). All participants would propose systemic therapy for a high-recurrence risk patient with a good performance score, and 92% would still recommend therapy if the patient had a poor score (p 0.001). Neo-adjuvant hormonal therapy followed by breast-conserving surgery for a large tumour was recommended by 27% of the participants. Adjuvant chemotherapy for an otherwise healthy woman with triple-negative BC was considered by 83% of the participants.Patient age and performance status influenced specialists' treatment recommendations. The observed recommendations for the treatment scenarios under investigation differ from older women's actual treatment. This discrepancy highlights the need for studies specifically targeting older patients.

Purpose: Treatment decisions in early breast cancer can revolve around type of surgery and whether or not to have adjuvant systemic therapy. This systematic review aims to give an overview of patient selfreported factors affecting preferences for breast conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy (MAST), the minimal benefit patients require from adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) and/or adjuvant hormonal therapy (aHT) to consider it worthwhile, and factors influencing this minimally-required benefit. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Results: We identified 15 studies on surgical and six on adjuvant systemic treatment decision-making. Factors affecting patient preference for BCS most frequently related to body image (44%), while factors influencing preference for MAST most often related to survival/recurrence (46%). To make adjuvant systemic therapy worthwhile, the median required absolute increase in survival rate was 0.1–10% and the median required additional life expectancy was 1 day to 5 years. The range of individual preferences was wide within studies. Participants in the aHT studies required larger median benefits than those in the aCT studies. Factors associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient most often (44%) related to quality of life (e.g., less treatment toxicity). Conclusion: Decisive factors in patients’ preferences for surgery type commonly relate to body image and survival/recurrence. Most participants judged small to moderate benefits sufficient to consider adjuvant systemic therapy worthwhile, but individual preferences varied widely. Clinicians should therefore consider the patient’s preferences to tailor their treatment recommendations accordingly.

Background: The use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB), lymph node dissection, breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal treatment for breast cancer was evaluated in relation to socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands, where access to care was assumed to be equal. Methods: Female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1994 and 2008 were selected from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=176 505). Socioeconomic status was assessed based on income, employment and education at postal code level. Multivariable models included age, year of diagnosis and stage. Results: Sentinal node biopsy was less often applied in high-SES patients (multivariable analyses, ⩽49 years: odds ratio (OR) 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56–0.89); 50–75 years: 0.85 (0.73–0.99)). Additionally, lymph node dissection was less common in low-SES patients aged ⩾76 years (OR 1.34 (0.95–1.89)). Socioeconomic status-related differences in treatment were only significant in the age group 50–75 years. High-SES women with stage T1–2 were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (+radiotherapy) (OR 1.15 (1.09–1.22) and OR 1.16 (1.09–1.22), respectively). Chemotherapy use among node-positive patients was higher in the high-SES group, but was not significant in multivariable analysis. Hormonal therapy was not related to SES. Conclusion: Small but significant differences were observed in the use of SNB, lymph node dissection and breast-conserving surgery according to SES in Dutch breast cancer patients despite assumed equal access to health care.

Introduction: People with suspected breast cancer who are not referred for diagnostic testing remain unregistered and are not included in cancer statistics. Little is known about the extent of and motivation for nonreferral of these patients. Methods: A Web-based survey was sent to all elderly care physicians (ECPs) registered at the National Association of Elderly Care Physicians and Social Geriatricians in the Netherlands, inquiring about the number of patients with suspected breast cancer they encountered and subsequent choices regarding referral. Results: Surveys were completed by 419 (34%) of 1239 ECPs; 249 (60%) of these had encountered one or more patients with suspected breast cancer in the past year. Seventy-four (33%) ECPs reported not referring the last patient. Reasons for nonreferral were end-stage dementia (57%), patient/family preference (29%), and limited life expectancy (23%). Referral was frequently thought to be too burdensome (13%). For 16% of nonreferred patients, hormonal treatment was started by the ECP without diagnostic confirmation of cancer. Conclusion: In this survey, more than 33% of nursing home patients with suspected breast cancer were not referred for further testing, in particular those with advanced dementia, limited life expectancy, and poor functional status. As the combination of dementia and suspected breast cancer is expected to double in the coming decades, now is the time to optimize cancer care for these vulnerable patients. Copyright (C) 2012 - American Medical Directors Association, Inc

Background It is unknown what minimal benefit in disease-free survival older patients with breast cancer require from adjuvant systemic therapy, and if this differs from that required by younger patients. We prospectively examined patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) and adjuvant hormonal therapy (aHT), factors related to minimally-required benefit, and patients' self-reported motivations. Patients and Methods Fifty-two younger (40-64 years) and 29 older (≥ 65 years) women with a first primary, invasive tumor were interviewed post-surgery, prior to receiving aCT/aHT recommendation. Results The proportions of younger versus older participants who would accept, refuse, or were undecided about therapy were 92% versus 62%, 4% versus 24%, and 4% versus 14% for aCT, and 92% versus 59%, 8% versus 17%, and 0% versus 24% for aHT. The proportion of older participants who would refuse rather than accept aCT was larger than that of younger participants ( P = .005). No significant difference was found for aHT ( P = .12). Younger and older participants' minimally-required benefit, in terms of additional 10-year disease-free survival, to accept aCT (median, 5% vs. 4%; P = .13) or aHT (median, 10% vs. 8%; P = .15) did not differ. Being single/divorced/widowed (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; P = .005), presence of geriatric condition (inability to perform daily activities, incontinence, severe sensory impairment, depression, polypharmacy, difficulties with walking; OR, 0.27; P = .047), and having a preference to make the treatment decision either alone or after considering the clinician's opinion (active role; OR, 0.15; P = .012) were independently related to requiring larger benefits from aCT. The most frequent motivations for/against therapy included the wish to survive/avoid recurrence, clinician's recommendation, side effects, and treatment duration (only aHT). Conclusion Whereas older participants were less willing to accept aCT than younger participants, no significant difference was found for aHT. However, a majority of older participants would still accept both therapies. Adjuvant systemic therapy should be discussed with eligible patients regardless of age.