Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

1892 - Results from NRG Oncology/NSABP protocol DMP-1: Physician Counseling

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Topics

Psychosocial Aspects of Cancer

Tumour Site

Breast Cancer

Presenters

Christine Holmberg

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii87-viii89. 10.1093/annonc/mdy271

Authors

C. Holmberg1, H. Bandos2, W. McCaskill-Stevens3, D..L. Wickerham4, T. Battaglia5, T.B. Bevers6, A. Fagerlin7

Author affiliations

  • 1 Social Medicine And Epidemiology, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical School Brandenburg Theodor Fontane Brandenburg/Havel, 14770 - Berlin/DE
  • 2 Biostatistics, NRG Oncology, 15213 - Pittsburgh/US
  • 3 Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute Div. Cancer Treatment, 20852-7426 - Rockville/US
  • 4 Oncology, NRG Oncology/NSABP; and The Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute, 15210 - Pittsburgh/US
  • 5 Medicine, Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston/US
  • 6 Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston/US
  • 7 Population Health, University of Utah School of Medicine/VA Salt Lake City (current); University of Michigan/VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management (research conducted), Salt Lake City/US
More

Resources

Abstract 1892

Background

Although selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce the risk of developing breast cancer (BC) in women at increased risk of the disease, there are also risks to consider. Guidelines suggest that such women should be counseled on risk-reducing options including SERMs. However, overall uptake is low. Previous results of DMP-1 showed that the health care provider’s (HCP) recommendation plays an important role in a woman’s decision to use a SERM. In this secondary analysis we aimed to better understand the counseling process of HCPs in the clinical care setting.

Methods

Women (N = 1,023) and their HCP discussed SERM use for BC risk reduction and were asked about the counseling, including risks and benefits presented and whether the HCP recommended SERM use. HCPs were also asked to report on the reasons for their recommendation and if the patient was likely to take a SERM or not. We describe the counseling and evaluate the agreement between the HCPs’ and women’s responses.

Results

HCPs reported on 1,022 counseling sessions. Benefits of SERMs in BC risk reduction were discussed in 96% of consultations; the risk of thromboembolism, endometrial cancer, and menopausal symptoms was discussed in > 86%; the risk of cataracts and decrease in libido in < 58%. Five HCPs reported no SERM discussion and were excluded. 66% of HCPs based their recommendation of SERM use on the Gail model risk score. Data for 895 participants were available to evaluate agreement. There was a modest agreement between the women’s and the HCPs’ statements on SERM recommendation (kappa=0.50), with fair agreement on the strength of the recommendation (weighted kappa=0.22) and substantial agreement between a woman’s decision and the HCP’s assumption of what his/her patient would do (kappa=0.65).

Conclusions

Most severe medical risks associated with SERM use were discussed during the counseling. The fairly low percentage of discussions about potential sexual consequences was comparable to that of other studies. Overall, there was fair to moderate agreement between HCPs and women’s perceptions of the counseling. Of note, HCPs had a good sense of what treatment the counseled women would choose. Support: U10CA180868, -180822; UG1-CA189867.

Clinical trial identification

NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1; NCT01399359; Opened to accrual: 8-1-11.

Legal entity responsible for the study

NRG Oncology.

Funding

NRG Oncology via NIH Grants: U10CA180868, -180822; UG1-CA189867.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.