Claire C Conley1,2, McKenzie McIntyre3, Nicole A Pensak4, Filipa Lynce5, Deena Graham6, Roohi Ismail-Khan3, Katherine Lopez7, Susan T Vadaparampil3, Suzanne C O'Neill7. 1. Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2115 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. claire.conley@georgetown.edu. 2. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. claire.conley@georgetown.edu. 3. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Atlantic Coast Mind & Body, Red Bank, NJ, USA. 5. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA. 7. Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2115 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most studies of adherence to treatment for breast cancer have focused on early-stage patients. Findings from these studies may not generalize to patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of adherence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors among patients with MBC, guided by the social ecologic model (SEM). METHODS: Patients with MBC (N = 25), their caregivers (N = 9), and oncology providers (N = 13) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three raters using a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators of adherence at each SEM level. Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors were most frequently discussed. Intrapersonal factors included knowledge/beliefs about CDK4/6 inhibitors, side effects, and establishing a routine. Interpersonal factors included effective communication with/coordination by the care team, support from family and friends, and information from other patients with MBC. Although less frequently discussed, policy factors (i.e., cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors) were of great concern to patients, caregivers, and providers. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention (e.g., patient education, evidence-based strategies for symptom management, tips for open and assertive communication with providers, information about financial resources/support available, and so on) to support adherence in this population.
PURPOSE: Most studies of adherence to treatment for breast cancer have focused on early-stage patients. Findings from these studies may not generalize to patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators of adherence to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors among patients with MBC, guided by the social ecologic model (SEM). METHODS: Patients with MBC (N = 25), their caregivers (N = 9), and oncology providers (N = 13) completed semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring their experiences with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by three raters using a combined deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators of adherence at each SEM level. Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors were most frequently discussed. Intrapersonal factors included knowledge/beliefs about CDK4/6 inhibitors, side effects, and establishing a routine. Interpersonal factors included effective communication with/coordination by the care team, support from family and friends, and information from other patients with MBC. Although less frequently discussed, policy factors (i.e., cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors) were of great concern to patients, caregivers, and providers. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors exist at multiple levels. Our results underscore the potential value of a multilevel intervention (e.g., patient education, evidence-based strategies for symptom management, tips for open and assertive communication with providers, information about financial resources/support available, and so on) to support adherence in this population.
Authors: Joseph A Greer; Nicole Amoyal; Lauren Nisotel; Joel N Fishbein; James MacDonald; Jamie Stagl; Inga Lennes; Jennifer S Temel; Steven A Safren; William F Pirl Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Francesco Schettini; Fabiola Giudici; Mario Giuliano; Massimo Cristofanilli; Grazia Arpino; Lucia Del Mastro; Fabio Puglisi; Sabino De Placido; Ida Paris; Pietro De Placido; Sergio Venturini; Michelino De Laurentis; PierFranco Conte; Dejan Juric; Antonio Llombart-Cussac; Lajos Pusztai; Aleix Prat; Guy Jerusalem; Angelo Di Leo; Daniele Generali Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Richard S Finn; Miguel Martin; Hope S Rugo; Stephen Jones; Seock-Ah Im; Karen Gelmon; Nadia Harbeck; Oleg N Lipatov; Janice M Walshe; Stacy Moulder; Eric Gauthier; Dongrui R Lu; Sophia Randolph; Véronique Diéras; Dennis J Slamon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adrianne R Mallen; Claire C Conley; Lindsay Fuzzell; Dana Ketcher; Bianca M Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Laura V Barton; Mary K Townsend; Brooke L Fridley; Shelley S Tworoger; Robert M Wenham; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hope S Rugo; Jens Huober; José A García-Sáenz; Norikazu Masuda; Joo Hyuk Sohn; Valerie A M Andre; Susana Barriga; Joanne Cox; Matthew Goetz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-10-09