Search

Objective: Preferences of women who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer were compared with those of their partners by determining the smallest benefits they judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile., Methods: Forty-six women and their partners were interviewed separately, 3-34 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Preferences were elicited using four sets of validated, hypothetical trade-off scenarios about the possible benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival times (5 and 15 years) and survival rates (65% and 85% at 5 years). Agreement within couples was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between baseline characteristics, preferences, and agreement within couples were assessed with linear regression after normal score transformation., Results: The mean age of the women was 57 years and of their partners' was 60. Most couples were married (91%). Benefits of an extra 1 day or 0.1% were judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 59-72% of women and 54-59% of partners. Agreement was exact in 35-41% of couples and approximate in 59-83%. Agreement was better for scenarios with a worse prognosis (ICC 0.67 and 0.35) than for scenarios with a better prognosis (ICC 0.13 and 0.05). Having dependent children was associated with partners requiring larger benefits but patients requiring smaller benefits to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile (interaction P=0.001)., Conclusion: Patients' and partners' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy differed and were influenced by considerations other than length and quality of life., Practice Implications: Clinicians who are aware of these differences can tailor discussions to ensure that all interested parties understand and agree on the goals and benefits of treatment.

Metastatic breast cancer is incurable but often responsive to treatment. There is little evidence-based consenus on when to use which treatments, in what combination and for how long. Systematic reviews were performed on 12 prospectively defined, clinically relevant research questions to support the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. A comprehensive search of Medline from 1966 to 1996 identified over 1800 controlled trials. Eligibility and data extraction were performed independently by two blinded reviewers. Trial results were summarised by ratios of median survivals (RMS) and P -values for survival curve comparisons with meta-analysis by weighted combination of these statistics. Sixty-five publications reporting 97 treatment comparisons were included. There was moderate evidence that more rather than fewer cycles of chemotherapy improved survival (RMS:1.23, P -0.01). The evidence did not support: higher rather than lower doses of chemotherapy (or of endocrine therapy); any one class of endocrine agent over all others; multiple endocrine agents over a single agent; or, combined chemotherapy and endocrine therapy over either single modality. Only six trials assessed quality of life revealing better quality of life with more rather than fewer cycles of chemotherapy and with standard rather than lower doses of chemotherapy. These systematic reviews reveal counterintuitive evidence useful to everyday practice, in particular that more rather than fewer cycles of chemotherapy lead to better quality of life and longer survival., (Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.)