Parker Gillian, Hogarth Stuart, Fishman Jennifer, Miller Fiona A
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 18;20(7):e0322509. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322509. eCollection 2025.
Breast cancer prognostic assays are emerging as tools used by physicians in the cancer treatment decision-making process. This technology is new, and we must interrogate the integration of these assays into clinical practice and their effect on prognosis and treatment for both providers and patients. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives on the use and integration of breast cancer prognostic assays in clinical care.
15 international researcher-physician/scientist key opinion leaders who had conducted studies on breast cancer prognostic assays were interviewed. Participants had conducted studies using five different assays. The interview guide was developed through a literature review and leveraged extensive data collected on key clinical utility outcomes for the assays. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Three novel themes emerged from participant's perspectives on the use and value of these assays. The emerging role of prognostic assays to identify overtreatment and unnecessary care was highlighted by the majority of participants. The primary value of these tools is to identify patients who will not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants reported that current standard practice is to overtreat and portrayed the binary or definitive results of these assays as an important tool to reduce overtreatment. Participants also provided insights into deliberate efforts to integrate the assays into clinical practice and how improved quality of life and reduction in overtreatment was positioned to justify high cost of the assay. Finally, participants reported how the perspectives and uses of these assays vary significantly in different countries and cultures. This jurisdictional variation in cancer prognosis and treatment was observed as producing uneven and sometimes problematic interpretations of value for the assays.
The results of this study provide insights into the integration of prognostic assays into healthcare services. The assays are seeking to extend the boundaries of their clinical utility through identifying overtreatment and low value care. Efforts to integrate these assays and justify their high prices are unpacked and reveal complex and contradictory factors. Finally, these results illuminate that the varied approaches to cancer treatment, and varied use of chemotherapy create disparate perceptions of value for the assays.
乳腺癌预后检测正逐渐成为医生在癌症治疗决策过程中使用的工具。这项技术尚新,我们必须审视这些检测方法在临床实践中的整合情况,以及它们对医疗服务提供者和患者的预后及治疗的影响。本研究的目的是探讨乳腺癌预后检测在临床护理中的使用和整合情况。
对15位进行过乳腺癌预后检测研究的国际研究人员、医生/科学家关键意见领袖进行了访谈。参与者使用了五种不同的检测方法进行研究。访谈指南是通过文献综述制定的,并利用了收集到的关于这些检测方法关键临床效用结果的大量数据。所有访谈均通过线上方式进行,录音并逐字转录。数据采用主题分析法进行分析。
从参与者对这些检测方法的使用和价值的看法中出现了三个新主题。大多数参与者强调了预后检测在识别过度治疗和不必要护理方面的新作用。这些工具的主要价值在于识别那些不会从辅助化疗中获益的患者。参与者报告说,当前的标准做法是过度治疗,并将这些检测方法的二元或确定性结果描述为减少过度治疗的重要工具。参与者还深入介绍了将这些检测方法整合到临床实践中的刻意努力,以及如何将生活质量的改善和过度治疗的减少作为检测方法高成本的正当理由。最后,参与者报告了这些检测方法在不同国家和文化中的观点和用途存在显著差异。观察到这种癌症预后和治疗的管辖权差异导致对检测方法价值的解释不均衡,有时甚至存在问题。
本研究结果为预后检测方法在医疗服务中的整合提供了见解。这些检测方法试图通过识别过度治疗和低价值护理来扩展其临床效用的边界。对整合这些检测方法并证明其高价格合理性的努力进行了剖析,揭示了复杂和矛盾的因素。最后,这些结果表明,癌症治疗的不同方法以及化疗的不同使用方式导致了对检测方法价值的不同看法。