CN67 - Comparison of existing guidelines for healthcare professionals on the perceived symptoms of breast cancer patients with registered symptoms in the medical records: Preliminary results

Background

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) may underestimate symptoms experienced by patients with breast cancer (BC). The study aims to gain insight into a potential gap between the symptoms outlined in guidelines versus the symptoms that the HCPs register in the medical records.

Methods

A Mixed-Method study compared symptoms outlined in best practice guidelines with those documented by physicians' inpatients’ medical records. Symptoms were classified according to the National Cancer Institute (NIH). BC patients in follow-up with aromatase inhibitors (Letrozole, Exemestane or Anastrozole) were included. Symptom registration was compared with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.

Results

Patients were included over a recruitment period of 3 months (n=23). Single symptoms identified by the NIH definition (n=235). Several symptoms were identified in the medical records which in the guidelines were described with different frequencies e.g., dry mount. Multiple identified symptoms in the medical journals were only described in a single guideline e.g., scar pain, skin irritation, general physical condition abnormal and nasal dryness. Several symptoms detected from clinical consultations were not mentioned in the guidelines at all e.g., muscular weakness and lack of energy.

Conclusions

The BC population expressed at the consultations several symptoms that are not compatible with the guidelines. Our results indicate that symptoms outlined in the best practice guidelines do not embrace the total patient-experienced symptoms as outlined by the physicians. There seems to be a discrepancy between the frequency of various symptoms. Perspective: As a part of the Mixed-Method design, an exploratory study is now being carried out by using patient- and focus-group interviews. The exploratory study is important, as it seeks to broaden the symptoms experienced by the patients compared to the symptoms identified in this study.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The Capital Region of Denmark, Rigshospitalet.

Funding

The Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Minister Erna Hammiltons legat and Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.