key: cord-0825360-hn7jj3wk authors: Savard, Marie-France; Alzahrani, Mashari Jemaan; Saunders, Deanna; Chang, Lynn; Arnaout, Angel; Ng, Terry L.; Brackstone, Muriel; Vandermeer, Lisa; Hsu, Tina; Awan, Ari Ali; Cole, Katherine; Larocque, Gail; Clemons, Mark title: Experiences and Perceptions of Older Adults with Lower-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer about Adjuvant Radiotherapy and Endocrine Therapy: A Patient Survey date: 2021-12-08 journal: Curr Oncol DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28060436 sha: 74629a0fb34a73d7ea2b90da40f5d2de9399f6c2 doc_id: 825360 cord_uid: hn7jj3wk Older patients with lower-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer are frequently offered both radiotherapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS). A survey was performed to assess older patients’ experiences and perceptions regarding RT and ET, and participation interest in de-escalation trials. Of the 130 patients approached, 102 eligible patients completed the survey (response rate 78%). The median age of respondents was 74 (interquartile range 71–76). Most participants (71%, 72/102) received both RT and ET. Patients felt the role of RT and ET, respectively, was to: reduce ipsilateral tumor recurrence (91%, 90/99 and 62%, 61/99) and improve survival (56%, 55/99 and 49%, 49/99). More patients had significant concerns regarding ET (66%, 65/99) than RT (39%, 37/95). When asked which treatment had the most negative effect on their quality of life, the results showed: ET (35%, 25/72), RT (14%, 10/72) or both (8%, 6/72). Participants would rather receive RT (57%, 41/72) than ET (43%, 31/72). Forty-four percent (44/100) of respondents were either, “not comfortable” or “not interested” in participating in potential de-escalation trials. Although most of the adjuvant therapy de-escalation trials evaluate the omission of RT, de-escalation studies of ET are warranted and patient centered. Over 30% of new breast cancers (BCs) are diagnosed in adults aged ≥ 70, and this proportion is rising [1, 2] . Older patients diagnosed with early-stage hormone-receptor positive (HR+) disease who undergo breast-conserving therapy (BCS) commonly receive both adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) and endocrine therapy (ET) [3] . However, this treatment approach is based on randomized controlled trials that either exclude or underrepresent patients aged ≥70 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] . Older patients with cancer tend to have more comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, poorer function and performance status, which all have implications on tolerance and compliance with treatment. Moreover, the competing risk of death in older adults with lower-risk HR+ BC render the adjuvant therapy benefits lesser than initially reported [9] [10] [11] . Prospective [12, 13] , retrospective [14, 15] , systematic review and meta-analysis [16] [17] [18] and computer modeling studies [19] have demonstrated that it is safe to omit either RT or ET without affecting distant metastasis and survival outcomes for older adults with lowerrisk HR+ BC. However, the randomized trials on adjuvant therapy de-escalation mainly evaluated the omission of RT [18] . However, this body of evidence has not changed broader clinical practice, as most patients continue to receive both treatment modalities [3, 20, 21] . Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the best de-escalation strategy is RT alone or ET alone [9, 22] . We conducted a survey among patients aged ≥70 who were offered adjuvant RT and ET for a lower-risk HR+ BC to better understand their perceptions with respect to adjuvant RT/ET and their interest in participating in clinical studies evaluating treatment de-escalation. The results of this survey will inform the decision-making process, include the patient's voice in current clinical practice and align our research objectives with the patient's needs and priorities. The survey's target population was patients ≥70 years of age who were diagnosed with early-stage (node negative) HR+ breast cancer treated with BCS, and who had been offered both RT and ET by their treating team. Of note, in our health region, all patients who had a BCS or a mastectomy for an invasive breast cancer would be referred to both a medical oncologist and a radiation oncologist to discuss adjuvant therapies. The original study plan was to accrue 200 participants in 3 months to ensure a broad perspective on treatment. Furthermore, in order to capture a wide range of experience on the treatment and decision-making process, patients could be at any point in the course of their breast cancer treatment or surveillance from the time that both adjuvant therapies were discussed. On 1 November 2020, an amendment was approved to the protocol to include patients treated with a mastectomy to better reflect our institutional practice and improve recruitment (Supplementary Materials). In addition, we felt that these patients could present some valuable input on their perceptions of adjuvant therapies. Patients had to be able to provide verbal consent and complete the survey in English. Patients were accrued in two cancer centers: The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center (TOH), including the General Campus and the Irving Greenberg Family Cancer Center (Ottawa, ON, CA), and The London Health Sciences Center (London, ON, CA). The aim of this survey was to provide insight on the experiences, perspectives and expectations of older patients with regards to adjuvant ET and RT for lower-risk HR+ breast cancer. Furthermore, this survey sought to understand patient interests in participating in clinical trials evaluating the de-escalation of ET. The patient survey was developed by a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in oncology, methodology and survey design [23, 24] , including medical oncologists (MC, MFS, TH), a radiation oncologist (LC), a surgical oncologist (AA), a nurse practitioner (GL) and a medical oncology resident (KC). It was also reviewed by non-healthcare professionals (DS, LV). The first part of the survey gathered information regarding patient demographics (age at diagnosis), health conditions (comorbidities, prescribed medications and self-rated health) and breast cancer medical context (type of adjuvant therapy received and the point at which they were in their breast cancer treatment) (8 items). The subsequent section evaluated the patients' understanding of the benefits and risks of ET and RT, as well as the expected benefit threshold at which they would accept treatment or not (10 items). Then, patients were asked to provide their views on participating in a theoretical de-escalation study looking at omitting ET (2 items). Finally, patients were asked to share their own experiences regarding ET and/or RT, including side effects and impact on quality of life, and to identify which of the two they would opt for given the choice (14 items) (the complete survey is available in the "Supplementary Materials" Section). Patients meeting eligibility criteria were approached and recruited by members within their circle of care (e.g., medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, general practitioners in oncology, nursing staff) during their routine clinic visits. Once verbal permission was given, interested patients had the choice of receiving a hard copy or an electronic version of the information sheet and survey. The electronic version was sent by email with a link to the anonymous survey on Microsoft Forms (on the secure Ottawa Hospital SharePoint site). Reminders were not sent to patients. The clinical research study associates (DS, LV) assisted in contacting interested patients, collecting completed surveys and gathering data. In addition, patients discharged from the oncology clinic to their family physicians through the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program of The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Center were also contacted (DS, MFS). This survey was approved by the Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board (OCREB). Data were reported using descriptive statistics and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The answer choices were summarized with observed proportions. Between 29 July 2020 and 3 March 2021, 130 patients were approached: 114 in Ottawa and 16 in London. Among these, 27 (21%) declined participation (Ottawa 26, London 1) and 1 was deemed not eligible afterwards due to their age at diagnosis. Of the eligible candidates, 87 and 15 completed surveys were obtained from Ottawa and London, respectively. Patient characteristics are presented at Table 1 . Among the 102 eligible respondents, the median age at BC diagnosis was 74 (interquartile range (IQR) 71-76). Forty-five percent (46/102) were ≥75. Most participants rated their health status as "good" (66%, 66/100). Excluding ET, the median and average number of prescribed medications taken per day by participants was three (IQR 2-4.75). The most commonly reported health problems were hypertension (49%, 50/102) and dyslipidemia (38%, 39/102). At the time that the survey was completed, 71% (72/102) were receiving or had received both RT and ET, 12% (12/102) were receiving or had received RT only and 9% (9/102) ET only. Of the 100 respondents who answered RT related questions: 10% (10/100) had declined RT, 7% (7/100) had not yet started RT, 1% (1/100) were receiving RT and 82% (82/100) had completed RT ( Table 1 ). The most common RT regimen received was 5 days per week for 3 weeks (72%, 61/85). In the 82 patients who completed RT, the main side effects reported were: skin redness (67%, 55/82) and fatigue (49%, 40/82). In patients who had completed RT at least 3 months ago, the ongoing common side effects were: fatigue (33%, 25/75) and breast pain (17%, 13/75) (Supplementary Materials). When participants were asked how RT affected their quality of life (QoL) or lifestyle, 26% (21/80) reported moderate impact, 4% (3/80) reported major impact that was resolved within 3 months and 1% (1/80) major ongoing impact. (Figure 1 ). Eighteen percent (18/101) declined ET, 7% (7/101) had not yet started ET, 65% (66/101) were taking ET and 7% (7/101) completed 5 years of ET. Two (2/101) reported that ET was not recommended to them (Table 1 ). Among participants who had either received or were still taking ET, 41% (33/80) took tamoxifen, 41% (33/80) anastrozole, 25% (20/80) letrozole and 6% (5/80) more than one type of ET. Eighty-three percent (66/80) reported that they were complying with the prescribed ET and 15% (12/80) did not take it at all. Among patients not taking ET, two completed 5 years of ET and the other ones had stopped taking it (13%, 10/80) (Supplementary Materials). The main side effects reported for ET were hot flashes (45%, 36/80), joint pain (45%, 36/80) and fatigue (41%, 33/80) (Supplementary Materials). Regarding the impact of ET on QoL or lifestyle, 81% (62/77) reported no impact or minimal impact, 14% (11/77) reported moderate impact and 5% (4/77) reported major impact ( Figure 1 ). Eighteen percent (18/101) declined ET, 7% (7/101) had not yet started ET, 65% (66/101) were taking ET and 7% (7/101) completed 5 years of ET. Two (2/101) reported that ET was not recommended to them (Table 1 ). Among participants who had either received or were still taking ET, 41% (33/80) took tamoxifen, 41% (33/80) anastrozole, 25% (20/80) letrozole and 6% (5/80) more than one type of ET. Eighty-three percent (66/80) reported that they were complying with the prescribed ET and 15% (12/80) did not take it at all. Among patients not taking ET, two completed 5 years of ET and the other ones had stopped taking it (13%, 10/80) (Supplementary Materials). The main side effects reported for ET were hot flashes (45%, 36/80), joint pain (45%, 36/80) and fatigue (41%, 33/80) (Supplementary Materials). Regarding the impact of ET on QoL or lifestyle, 81% (62/77) reported no impact or minimal impact, 14% (11/77) reported moderate impact and 5% (4/77) reported major impact (Figure 1 ). Among 72 respondents who had received both RT and ET, 43% (31/72) reported that neither RT nor ET affected their QoL, 35% (25/72) that ET affected their QoL more than RT, 14% (10/72) that RT affected their QoL more than ET, 8% (6/72) that RT and ET affected their QoL equally (Figure 1 ). When participants who received both RT and ET were asked which of RT or ET that they would rather receive, 57% (41/72) preferred RT over ET (Figure 1 ). Ninety-one percent (90/99) answered that RT would help reduce ipsilateral breast recurrence vs. 62% (61/99) for ET ( More than half of the participants selected that they would agree to take RT or ET for any degree of benefit in terms of ipsilateral breast recurrence (RT: 66%, 65/98; ET: 51%, 51/100), metastatic recurrence (RT: N/A; ET: 54%, 52/100) and overall survival (RT: N/A; ET: 57%, 56/100) at 5 years. The second most common answer was an absolute benefit threshold of at least 50% for every category: ipsilateral breast recurrence (RT: 8%, 8/98; ET: 15%, 15/100), metastatic recurrence (RT: N/A; ET: 12%, 12/100) and overall survival (RT: N/A; ET: 18%, 18/100) at 5 years (Table 3) . Boxes that are shaded grey indicated that question was not asked. Participants were asked how comfortable they would be if their oncologists did not offer RT or ET based on their health and lower-risk cancer status ( Figure 2 ): 45% (45/99) and 53% (54/102) would be comfortable to various degrees in omitting RT or ET, respectively. Regarding their interest in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial that omits ET: 28% (28/100) would feel very comfortable or comfortable, 28% (28/100) unsure, 30% (30/100) not comfortable. Furthermore, 14% would not be interested in participating in any kind of research study (Figure 2) . To our knowledge, this is the first survey on the perceptions of older adults with lower-risk HR+ BC towards RT and ET and de-escalation clinical trials. Although RT and ET are the two established adjuvant therapies for HR+ HER2-BC, evidence supporting their use in this population is based on extrapolation from studies that mainly accrued younger patients with higher risk BC. There is increasing interest in de-intensifying adjuvant therapies in older patients with biologically favorable BC defined as node-negative, small size, low-intermediate grade and HR+ BC [9] . To date, most of the prospective trials performed in older patients compared the omission of RT to standard of care, i.e., RT plus ET [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] . These studies demonstrated that while RT reduced the rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, neither the omission of RT nor ET impacts survival [14, 17, 18] . Limited data exist on ET omission [12, 13, 18] and clinical endpoints, such as QoL, safety and economics [9, 18] . In this survey, almost half of the participants were aged 75 and older, providing a good representation of the elderly population. However, it is possible that highly educated and non-minority populations were over-represented, as we did not collect data on this. While many participants perceived themselves to be in good health, many reported comorbidities and most took several medications, as is common with aging. Notably, a substantial proportion of patients were taking four or more medications. For these patients, the addition of ET would result in polypharmacy [32] , which can be associated with increased pill burden, increased likelihood of side effects and can have financial implications for patients. Thus, taking additional medication (ET) is not inconsequential for patients in this age category [33] . To our knowledge, this is the first survey on the perceptions of older adults with lowerrisk HR+ BC towards RT and ET and de-escalation clinical trials. Although RT and ET are the two established adjuvant therapies for HR+ HER2-BC, evidence supporting their use in this population is based on extrapolation from studies that mainly accrued younger patients with higher risk BC. There is increasing interest in de-intensifying adjuvant therapies in older patients with biologically favorable BC defined as node-negative, small size, lowintermediate grade and HR+ BC [9] . To date, most of the prospective trials performed in older patients compared the omission of RT to standard of care, i.e., RT plus ET [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] . These studies demonstrated that while RT reduced the rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, neither the omission of RT nor ET impacts survival [14, 17, 18] . Limited data exist on ET omission [12, 13, 18] and clinical endpoints, such as QoL, safety and economics [9, 18] . In this survey, almost half of the participants were aged 75 and older, providing a good representation of the elderly population. However, it is possible that highly educated and non-minority populations were over-represented, as we did not collect data on this. While many participants perceived themselves to be in good health, many reported comorbidities and most took several medications, as is common with aging. Notably, a substantial proportion of patients were taking four or more medications. For these patients, the addition of ET would result in polypharmacy [32] , which can be associated with increased pill burden, increased likelihood of side effects and can have financial implications for patients. Thus, taking additional medication (ET) is not inconsequential for patients in this age category [33] . About 70% of the participants in this survey received or are planning to receive both RT and ET, which correlates with the most common adjuvant approach [3, 20, 21] . However, many appeared to misunderstand and/or overestimate the clinical benefits of RT and ET. For example, 44% believed that RT helps reduce metastatic recurrence and 25% felt it could reduce the risk of contralateral BC occurrence. Even though the survival benefit of RT and ET was not demonstrated [9, 18, 19] , about 50% believed that it will improve their survival. Surprisingly, while more than 50% would have taken RT/ET regardless of the magnitude of benefit, others would have taken RT/ET only if it yielded a level of efficacy that is much higher than what is demonstrated. One possible reason is that the concept of benefits relative to risks is difficult for physicians to explain and challenging for patients to grasp. This highlights a key aspect which must be accounted for and improved upon in order to help patients in their decision-making process. The relatively high proportion who would take adjuvant therapies regardless of the degree of benefit and the high ET compliance rate could also reflect the fact that a high proportion reported that treatments did not significantly impact their QoL, and/or could reflect a selection bias. These respondents may be fitter and are likely those who tolerated treatment. However, this remains an important finding, which points out that increased age does not always equate with a desire for less treatment or a shift in perception about what outcomes are important (e.g., overall survival vs. QoL), and emphasizes the importance of asking older patients about their values and preferences. Participants preferred RT over ET in terms of side effects, expected benefits and QoL. Furthermore, a majority of patients treated with ET and RT would rather receive RT than ET and appeared to be more comfortable in omitting ET rather than RT. This may reflect technical and practical advances in RT, which have lessened late toxicities and reduced treatment numbers, rendering RT much more tolerable in recent years. This preference for RT over ET is also important, as it contrasts with the fact that almost all randomized controlled trials have focused on evaluating the omission of RT rather than ET [9] , suggesting that studies evaluating the omission of ET are warranted. The necessity of such studies may be increasingly important with the adoption of 5-fraction RT courses, which were not standard at the time when participants received treatment [34] and may further skew patient preference towards ET omission. Despite these findings and the interest from a medical perspective in minimizing harm due to over-treatment, up to 45% were not comfortable or did not want to participate in any kind of research study. A prior systematic review reported that 83% of the studies identified patient barriers as a major category that hindered the enrollment of older patients in clinical trials, of which 50% were due to patient concerns regarding the idea of experimentation [35] . This highlights the importance of both engaging patients during clinical study development and addressing their concerns to ensure that proposed studies are successful and inclusive of a wide range of older patients. Our study has limitations. First, the COVID-19 pandemic directly affected our accrual. Fewer patients underwent surveillance mammography, and, therefore, a reduced number of new patients were seen. Furthermore, there were less opportunities for direct interactions as many patients were being seen virtually. In this survey, we included patients at different stages in their BC treatment journey to capture short-and long-term perspectives. This might be perceived as a limitation, since it makes the population less homogeneous and may introduce a recall bias if some were more than 5 years after their diagnosis. The survey only included patients who had been offered both ET and RT, and did not include patients who for whatever reason were not offered either modality. Furthermore, as most patients agreed to therapy, it is likely that these patients perceived a greater benefit to therapy and had a greater willingness to take therapy. Finally, this survey was completed without supervision and the treatments received could not be verified. In addition, some patients omitted answering certain questions. This might be due to inability to recall information, the length of the questionnaire or a lack of understanding. Despite the paucity of data specifically addressing adjuvant therapy for older patients with lower-risk HR + BC, most participants surveyed received both RT and ET, and appeared to overestimate the clinical benefits of RT and ET. Older patients might be more interested in de-escalation clinical trials that omit ET, since they would rather receive RT than ET and were more comfortable in omitting ET. This patient survey will be a key instrument for including patient voices in the design of future clinical trials. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10 .3390/curroncol28060436/s1, Study protocol, Patient's survey, Table S1 (Radiotherapy schedules and side effects), TableS2 (Endocrine therapy type, compliance and side effects). Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries Convergence of incidence rates between black and white women Patterns of adjuvant care and outcomes of elderly women with stage I breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery: A population-based analysis Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Radiation therapy for the whole breast: Executive summary of an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidencebased guideline Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: Updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) Omission of postoperative radiation after breast conserving surgery: A progressive paradigm shift towards precision medicine Influence of the competing risk of death on estimates of disease recurrence in trials of adjuvant endocrine therapy for early-stage breast cancer: A secondary analysis of MA.27, MA.17 and MA.17R Informing Patients About Expected Outcomes: The Efficacy-Effectiveness Gap Radiation Therapy, or Both for Prevention of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence After Lumpectomy in Women With Invasive Breast Cancers of One Centimeter or Less Local Control, Toxicity, and Cosmesis in Women >70 Years Enrolled in the American Society of Breast Surgeons Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Registry Trial Plus Hormone or Radiation Therapy Alone for Women Aged 70 Years or Older With Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in the Modern Era: An Analysis of the National Cancer Database Adjuvant breast radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both after breast conserving surgery in older women with low-risk breast cancer: Results from a population-based study Tamoxifen with radiotherapy compared with Tamoxifen alone in elderly women with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis The benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery in older patients with low risk breast cancer-a meta-analysis of randomized trials De-Escalating Adjuvant Therapies in Older Patients with Lower Risk Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Radiation Therapy Without Hormone Therapy for Women Age 70 or Above with Low-Risk Early Breast Cancer: A Microsimulation The evolving role of adjuvant radiotherapy for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer The Use of Hormone Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy and Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer in Elderly Women: A Population-Based Study Is It Time to Reevaluate Radiotherapy Omission in Older Patients With Favorable Early-Stage Breast Cancer? Bone-targeted agent use for bone metastases from breast cancer and prostate cancer: A patient survey Optimizing Vascular Access for Patients Receiving Intravenous Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer-A Survey of Oncology Nurses and Physicians Plus Tamoxifen With or Without Irradiation in Women Age 70 Years or Older With Early Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of CALGB 9343 Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer (PRIME II): A randomised controlled trial Breast-Conservative Surgery with and without Radiotherapy in Patients Aged 55-75 Years with Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Trial Analysis After 108 Months of Median Follow-up Tamoxifen with or without Breast Irradiation in Women 50 Years of Age or Older with Early Breast Cancer Van Der Pol, M. A randomised controlled trial of post-operative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk population. Quality of life at 5 years in the PRIME trial Prospective comparison of breast pain in patients participating in a randomized trial of breast-conserving surgery and tamoxifen with or without radiotherapy Omission of radiotherapy in elderly patients with early breast cancer: 15-Year results of a prospective nn-randomised trial What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions Polypharmacy: Evaluating Risks and Deprescribing Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions REthinking Clinical trials (REaCT) program. The authors declare no conflict of interest.