Abstract P5-11-02: Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: Patients and physicians preferences
Authors: I Vaz Luis, A O'Neill, K Sepucha, KD Miller, E Baker, CT Dang, DW Northfelt, EP Winer, GW Sledge, BP Schneider, A Partridge
Journal: Cancer Research (2016)

Abstract Background: Data regarding patients (pts) and physicians' preferences for modern adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) are limited. Prior studies suggested that most pts with early stage breast cancer were willing to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) for modest survival benefits (e.g. most women would have accepted 3-6 months extension of life). Methods: E5103 was a phase III trial which randomized node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer pts to receive adjuvant CT (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel) with either placebo or bevacizumab. Telephone based surveys were administered to all pts enrolled on E5103 between 01/Jan/10 and 08/Jun/10, as part of a Decision-Making/Quality of Life component. Results presented here are part of the 18 months post-enrollment follow-up. Pts were asked to rate the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of CT. A complementary survey was sent to all physicians who registered at least one pt on E5103. Results: 465 out of 519 eligible pts (90%) responded to this survey at 18 months. Main reasons for non response were: inability to reach the patient (6%) or patient refusal (2%). Median pts age was 51 (25-76); 42% of pts had at least a college degree. The majority had at least Stage II cancer. 179 (16%) physicians participated, among whom median age was 50 (35-70). The median years in practice was 17 (3-38); 78% of physicians worked on large size practices, 72% saw at least 5 new breast cancer pts/month, and 77% enroll between 1-4 pts on trials/month. We found considerable variation in pts preferences particularly for modest survival benefits: a substantial minority of pts (24%) would consider 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 1 month survival benefit, 18% would possibly consider it and 56% would not. The percentage considering CT definitely worthwhile increased with greater benefit, but did not reach 100%, even with 24 months survival benefit. About half of pts considered 6 months of CT definitely worthwhile for 9 months benefit, 70% for 12 months and 84% for 24 months. Physicians were less likely to accept CT for a small chance of benefit (34% of pts vs. 5% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 2 months of benefit). For longer benefit, pts and physicians choices were similar (84% of pts vs. 92% of physicians would definitely consider CT worthwhile for 24 months benefit). Table Yes, definitely worthwhileYes, maybeNo, not worthwhileNo answerConsider 6 months of CT to live:PtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPtsPhysiciansPts/Physicians*1 month longer24%3%18%15%56%80%2%2 months longer34%5%23%32%41%60%2%6 months longer44%32%35%54%19%12%2%9 months longer53%51%34%42%11%5%2%12 months longer70%75%23%22%5%1%2%24 months longer84%92%12%5%2%1%2%n Pts= 465; n Physicians= 179; * equal results in both groups Conclusions: This subgroup of pts who had undergone modern adjuvant CT in a large multicenter randomized controlled trial and these physicians who registered pts on the same trial had different cutoffs for acceptable levels of benefits and risks when considering adjuvant chemotherapy. It is important to engage pts in determining whether CT is or is not a "reasonable" option for treatment. Citation Format: Vaz Luis I, O'Neill A, Sepucha K, Miller KD, Baker E, Dang CT, Northfelt DW, Winer EP, Sledge GW, Schneider BP, Partridge A. Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: Patients and physicians preferences. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-11-02.