SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

López, Isabel Álvarez; Haba, Juan de la; Simon, A.; Ezquerra, Meritxell Bellet; Calvo, Lourdes; Estévez, Laura G.; Lescure, Álvaro Rodríguez; Isla, Dolores

doi:10.1007/s12094-010-0585-6

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The review of national guidance (either clinical guidelines or HTA reports) identified five documents on breast cancer care for England and Wales ( 49 – 53 ), three from Spain ( 54 – 56 ), and six from Sweden ( 57 – 62 ). The Cancer Strategy document published by the Spanish Ministry of Health ( 54 ) makes no treatment-specific recommendations, so we also reviewed the two Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) guidelines ( 55 ; 56 ) although these are not “official” guidance. In all countries, guidelines covered the whole disease pathway incorporating early, advanced, and metastatic disease.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Effectiveness in Breast Cancer Treatment: A Health Production Approach

Puig-Peiro

Mason

Mestre-Ferrandiz

et al. 2015

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pharmaceuticals’ relative effectiveness has come to the fore in the policy arena, reflecting the need to understand how relative efficacy (what can work) translates into added benefit in routine clinical use (what does work). European payers and licensing authorities assess value for money and post-launch benefit–risk profiles, and efforts to standardize assessments of relative effectiveness across the European Union (EU) are under way. However, the ways that relative effectiveness differs across EU healthcare settings are poorly understood.Methods: To understand which factors influence differences in relative effectiveness, we developed an analytical framework that treats the healthcare system as a health production function. Using evidence on breast cancer from England, Spain, and Sweden as a case study, we investigated the reasons why the relative effectiveness of a new drug might vary across healthcare systems. Evidence was identified from a literature review and national clinical guidance.Results: The review included thirteen international studies and thirty country-specific studies. Cross-country differences in population age structure, deprivation, and educational attainment were consistently associated with variation in outcomes. Screening intensity appeared to drive differences in survival, although the impact on mortality was unclear.Conclusions: The way efficacy translates into relative effectiveness across health systems is likely to be influenced by a range of complex and interrelated factors. These factors could inform government and payer policy decisions on ways to optimize relative effectiveness, and help increase understanding of the potential transferability of data on relative effectiveness from one health system to another.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Effectiveness in Breast Cancer Treatment: A Health Production Approach

Puig-Peiro

Mason

Mestre-Ferrandiz

et al. 2015

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several clinical guidelines are available for MBC 3–9 , but recommendations and optimal treatment sequences are still not clearly standardized 10 , and there is a pressing need for optimal and homogeneous treatment sequences. MBC treatment is an evolving field in which new drugs and therapies are emerging, and therefore oncologists usually combine solid evidence from clinical trials with their personal experience when choosing the best therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broad consensus on the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer: results from a survey of Spanish medical oncologists

Sánchez‐Rovira

Zamora

Salvador-Bofill

et al. 2019

Journal of Drug Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this survey conducted by 20 leading Spanish oncologists was to analyze the concurrence between Spanish clinical practice and the recently published definition of the optimal sequence for the systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) according to patient profiles. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was developed, divided into five sections comprising 34 specific questions related to sequential treatments, plus three additional general questions. Respondents were asked to justify negative answers. Participants were recruited randomly by invitation out of a total of 619 oncologists. The questionnaire was sent and collected via e-mail between October 2015 and May 2016. A total of 191 completed questionnaires were received. Results: Overall, 70% of oncologists would keep the three patient profiles exactly as proposed (hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative, HER2-positive, and triple negative breast cancer). Affirmative answers to questions regarding treatment sequences for these patient profiles (1–34) ranged from 77.8–99.5%, with an average of 90.9% of oncologists being in agreement with the recommended sequential treatments. The lowest degree of consensus was observed for endocrine treatments in pre-menopausal women and for chemotherapy options in hormone-resistant patients, whilst the highest degree of consensus was reached for targeted therapies in HER2-positive patients and for endocrine therapy in post-menopausal women. In their comments, participants revealed a number of economic constraints that prevented them from implementing some of the best treatment options. Conclusions: In conclusion, despite the complexity of MBC treatment, there is general agreement on the optimal treatment sequences.

show abstract