ObjectiveActive surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.ResultsA total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.ConclusionsThis study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

Background Patient‐centred care (PCC) improves health‐care experiences and outcomes. Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and clinicians have reported communication difficulties. Little prior research has studied how to improve communication and PCC for DCIS. Objective This study explored how to achieve PCC for DCIS. Design Canadian women treated for DCIS from five provinces participated in semi‐structured focus groups based on a 6‐domain cancer‐specific PCC framework to discuss communication about DCIS. Data were analysed using constant comparative technique. Setting and Participants Thirty‐five women aged 30 to 86 participated in five focus groups at five hospitals. Results Women said their clinicians used multiple approaches for fostering a healing relationship; however, most described an absence of desired information or behaviour to exchange information, respond to emotions, manage uncertainty, make decisions and enable self‐management. Most women were confused by terminology, offered little information about the risks of progression/recurrence, uninformed about treatment benefits and risks, frustrated with lack of engagement in decision making, given little information about follow‐up plans or self‐care advice, and received no acknowledgement or offer of emotional support. Discussion and Conclusions By comparing the accounts of women with DCIS to a PCC framework, we identified limitations and inconsistencies in women's lived experience of communication about DCIS, and approaches by which clinicians can more consistently achieve PCC for DCIS. Future research should develop and evaluate informational tools to support PCC for DCIS.

HighlightsLGASC is an uncommon form of triple-negative metaplastic breast carcinoma.Imaging, FNAC, & CNBx are usually indeterminate with no pathognomonic features.Histopathology is the gold standard for definitive diagnosis.Relationship between LGASC and benign mimickers (SAN, CSL) continues to evolve.LGASC is likely multicentric, thus mastectomy is the recommended management.

PurposePrognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.ResultsA total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician’s recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient–physician discussion and decision-making.ConclusionsAs most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-017-4613-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose The purpose of this research was to generate recommendations on strategies to achieve patient-centered care (PCC) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Methods Thirty clinicians (surgeons, medical/radiation oncologists, radiologists, nurses, navigators) who manage DCIS and 32 DCIS survivors aged 18 or older were nominated. Forty-six recommendations to support PCC for DCIS were derived from primary research, and rated in a two-round Delphi process from March to June 2018. Results A total of 29 clinicians and 27 women completed Round One, and 28 clinicians and 22 women completed Round Two. The 29 recommendations retained by both women and clinicians reflected the PCC domains of fostering patient–physician relationship (5), exchanging information (5), responding to emotions (1), managing uncertainty (4), making decisions (9), and enabling patient self-management (5). An additional 13 recommendations were retained by women only: fostering patient–physician relationship (1), exchanging information (3), responding to emotions (2), making decisions (3), and enabling patient self-management (4). Some recommendations refer to processes (i.e., ask questions about lifestyle or views about risks/outcomes to understand patient preferences); others to tools (i.e., communication aid). Panelists recommended a separate consensus process to refine the language that clinicians use when describing DCIS. Conclusions This is the first study to generate guidance on how to achieve PCC for DCIS. Organizations that deliver or oversee health care can use these recommendations on PCC for DCIS to plan, evaluate, or improve services. Ongoing research is needed to develop communication tools, and establish labels and language for DCIS that optimize communication. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05132-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) report poor patient-clinician communication, and longlasting confusion and anxiety about their treatment and prognosis. Research shows that patient-centred care (PCC) improves patient experience and outcomes. Little is known about the clinician experience of delivering PCC for DCIS. This study characterized communication challenges faced by clinicians, and interventions they need to improve PCC for DCIS. Methods: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit Canadian clinicians by specialty, gender, years of experience, setting, and geographic location. Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone. Data were analyzed using constant comparison. Findings were mapped to a cancer-specific, comprehensive PCC framework to identify opportunities for improvement. Results: Clinicians described approaches they used to address the PCC domains of fostering a healing relationship, exchanging information, and addressing emotions, but do not appear to be addressing the domains of managing uncertainty, involving women in making decisions, or enabling self-management. However, many clinicians described challenges or variable practices for all PCC domains but fostering a healing relationship. Clinicians vary in describing DCIS as cancer based on personal beliefs. When exchanging information, most find it difficult to justify treatment while assuring women of a good prognosis, and feel frustrated when women remain confused despite their efforts to explain it. While they recognize confusion and anxiety among women, clinicians said that patient navigators, social workers, support groups and high-quality information specific to DCIS are lacking. Despite these challenges, clinicians said they did not need or want communication interventions. Conclusions: Findings represent currently unmet opportunities by which to help clinicians enhance PCC for DCIS, and underscore the need for supplemental information and supportive care specific to DCIS. Future research is needed to develop and test communication interventions that improve PCC for DCIS. If effective and widely implemented, this may contribute to improved care experiences and outcomes for women diagnosed with and treated for DCIS.

The SLN procedure is not only associated with significantly less morbidity compared to the axillary lymph node dissection, it may also result in more accurate staging, better axillary tumor control and improved survival.

Background: Breast cancer is rare in men. This population-based study aimed to determine outcomes of male breast cancer in relation to residence and other variables. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, men diagnosed with breast cancer in Saskatchewan during 2000–2019 were evaluated. Cox proportional multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine the correlation between survival and clinicopathological and contextual factors. Results: One hundred-eight eligible patients with a median age of 69 years were identified. Of them, 16% had WHO performance status ≥ 2 and 61% were rural residents. The stage at diagnosis was as follows: stage 0, 7%; I, 31%; II, 42%; III, 11%; IV, 8%. Ninety-eight percent had hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The median disease-free survival of urban patients was 97 (95% CI: 50–143) vs. 64 (46–82) months of rural patients (p = 0.29). The median OS of urban patients was 127 (94–159) vs. 93 (32–153) months for rural patients (p = 0.27). On multivariable analysis, performance status ≥ 2, hazard ratio (HR) 2.82 (1.14–6.94), lack of adjuvant systemic therapy, HR 2.47 (1.03–5.92), and node-positive disease, HR 2.32 (1.22–4.40) were significantly correlated with inferior disease-free survival in early-stage invasive breast cancer. Whereas stage IV disease, HR 7.8 (3.1–19.5), performance status ≥ 2, HR 3.25 (1.57–6.71), and age ≥ 65 years, HR 2.37 (1.13–5.0) were correlated with inferior overall survival in all stages. Conclusions: Although residence was not significantly correlated with outcomes, rural men had numerically inferior survival. Poor performance status, node-positive disease, and lack of adjuvant systemic therapy were correlated with inferior disease-free survival.