Hawley Sarah T, Janz Nancy K, Griffith Kent A, Jagsi Reshma, Friese Christopher R, Kurian Allison W, Hamilton Ann S, Ward Kevin C, Morrow Monica, Wallner Lauren P, Katz Steven J
Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb;161(3):557-565. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4082-7. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
Little is known about different ways of assessing risk of distant recurrence following cancer treatment (e.g., numeric or descriptive). We sought to evaluate the association between overestimation of risk of distant recurrence of breast cancer and key patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and worry.
We surveyed a weighted random sample of newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer identified through SEER registries of Los Angeles County & Georgia (2013-14) ~2 months after surgery (N = 2578, RR = 71%). Actual 10-year risk of distant recurrence after treatment was based on clinical factors for women with DCIS & low-risk invasive cancer (Stg 1A, ER+, HER2-, Gr 1-2). Women reported perceptions of their risk numerically (0-100%), with values ≥10% for DCIS & ≥20% for invasive considered overestimates. Perceptions of "moderate, high or very high" risk were considered descriptive overestimates. In our analytic sample (N = 927), we assessed factors correlated with both types of overestimation and report multivariable associations between overestimation and QoL (PROMIS physical & mental health) and frequent worry.
30.4% of women substantially overestimated their risk of distant recurrence numerically and 14.7% descriptively. Few factors other than family history were significantly associated with either type of overestimation. Both types of overestimation were significantly associated with frequent worry, and lower QoL.
Ensuring understanding of systemic recurrence risk, particularly among patients with favorable prognosis, is important. Better risk communication by clinicians may translate to better risk comprehension among patients and to improvements in QoL.
对于癌症治疗后评估远处复发风险的不同方法(如数值法或描述法),人们了解甚少。我们试图评估乳腺癌远处复发风险高估与关键的患者报告结局之间的关联,这些结局包括生活质量和担忧程度。
我们对通过洛杉矶县和佐治亚州的监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)登记处确定的新诊断早期乳腺癌患者进行了加权随机抽样调查,调查在手术后约2个月进行(N = 2578,回复率 = 71%)。治疗后实际的10年远处复发风险基于导管原位癌(DCIS)和低风险浸润性癌(1A期,雌激素受体阳性,人表皮生长因子受体2阴性,组织学分级1 - 2级)女性的临床因素。女性以数值形式报告她们对自身风险的认知(0 - 100%),DCIS风险值≥10%以及浸润性癌风险值≥20%被视为高估。对“中度、高度或非常高”风险的认知被视为描述性高估。在我们的分析样本(N = 927)中,我们评估了与两种高估类型相关的因素,并报告了高估与生活质量(患者报告结果测量信息系统的身心健康)和频繁担忧之间的多变量关联。
30.4%的女性在数值上大幅高估了她们的远处复发风险,14.7%在描述上高估了风险。除家族史外,很少有因素与任何一种高估类型显著相关。两种高估类型均与频繁担忧和较低的生活质量显著相关。
确保患者理解全身复发风险,尤其是预后良好的患者,这一点很重要。临床医生更好地进行风险沟通可能会使患者更好地理解风险,并改善生活质量。