458P - Metastatic breast cancer: How and how often do we communicate? Results from an Italian national survey

Background

Communication is a complex process; an effective communication requires a two-way relationship between patients (pts) and healthcare providers (hp). The areas of communication concern diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. In this context, a tailored communication approach is suggested to keep pts involved in the clinical decision-making process.

Methods

Between 21 June and 4 October 2022, a 38-question web survey, promoted by the IncontraDonna Foundation and carried out in collaboration with both the Italian Society of Psycho-Oncology (SIPO) and the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), was sent to oncologists members of AIOM. The aim of this study was both to investigate how and how much oncologists communicate with metastatic breast cancer pts (mBCp) and to probe clinicians’ opinions and needs.

Results

140 oncologists from 19 Italian regions participated in the survey. Responders reported discussing prognosis with their mBCp both in terms of residual life (96%), goals of care (98%) and likelihood of treatment response (94%), in the last two cases especially at the time of the first oncological visit (67% and 60%, respectively). As many as 93% of responders stated that they investigate the degree of understanding of the information provided. In communicating the prognosis, 49% of responders considered the presence of a caregiver "very useful” and 61% considered her/his absence "very disadvantageous". About the organization of one's department, the time dedicated to doctor-patient communication was considered "quite sufficient” in 16%", "little but sufficient” in 44%, "scarce” in 31% and "insufficient ” in 10% of cases. In 89% of cases the presence of a psycho-oncology service was reported, to which mBCp would be referred regularly in only 14% of cases. Specific training courses for hp (69%) and periodic meetings with expert psycho-oncologists (59%) are the improvement actions most requested by clinicians.

Conclusions

The results of this survey highlighted heterogeneity in the management of communication in mBCp across the Italian country. Although the figure of the psycho-oncologist is considered important, its integration into the therapeutic process still appears complex.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

L. Gerratana: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer. S. Spazzapan: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: MSD Italia, Seagen, AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: MSD, Novartis, Mundipharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Congress registration: Pfizer; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Tutoring: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, congress registration and travel expenses: Pfizer; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Congress registration and travel expenses: Novartis; Financial Interests, Institutional, Local PI: AstraZeneca. S. Cinieri: Other, Personal, Member of Board of Directors, President: AIOM. F. Puglisi: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Funding, Personal fees: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Institutional, Funding: Eisai; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Personal fees: Roche, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.