Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast cancer patient perspective on opportunities and challenges of a genetic test aimed to predict radio-induced side effects before treatment: Analysis of the Italian branch of the REQUITE project

  • Radiotherapy
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To explore breast cancer patient’s perspective on future genetic testing for prediction of toxicity after breast radiotherapy (RT).

Materials and methods

The study involved patient enrolled in the Italian branch of the REQUITE project conducted at the National Cancer Institute in Milan. Semi-structured interviews were conducted within one month from the end of radiotherapy treatment by two radiation oncologists and a radiotherapy technician previously trained by a clinical psychologist with experience in the oncology field. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by a set of pre-defined questions and developed ad hoc by researchers in Leicester within the REQUITE project. The interview questions investigated interest in undergoing the genetic test and expectations on its usefulness and disadvantages.

Results

Eighteen interviews were conducted and analysed. Forty-five initial codes were combined into nine themes which were then clustered in two main macro-areas (i) Opportunities and (ii) Challenges. Overall, all patients understand the aim of the genetic test and considered its intrinsic opportunity to make the physician more confident with the treatment. Regarding side effects, most of patients felt prepared to RT but not without fear. Many women considered important to have the largest and reliable information, also about negative experiences. Prevailing emotions were anxiety and fear but not connected to genetic test’s result.

Conclusions

A genetic test could be an opportunity because generate knowledge and give patients a dynamic role in the decision-making approach. Prediction of single patient radiosensitivity before RT could prompt suggestion to entail a more and more tailored radiation treatment in the era of personalized approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C et al (2011) Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15- year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomized trials. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hopwood P, Haviland JS, Sumo G et al (2010) Comparison of patient-reported breast, arm, and shoulder symptoms and body image after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: 5-year follow-up in the randomised Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials. Lancet Oncol 11:231–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams LJ, Kunkler IH, King CC et al (2011) A randomised controlled trial of post-operative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk population. Quality of life at 5 years in the PRIME trial. Health Technol Assess. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15120

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mukesh MB, Qian W, Wilkinson JS et al (2014) Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following forward planned field-in field IMRT: results of the Cambridge breast IMRT trial. Radiother Oncol 111:270–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Talbot CJ, Tanteles GA, Barnett GC et al (2012) A replicated association between polymorphisms near TNFa and risk for adverse reactions to radiotherapy. Br J Cancer 107:748–753

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Seibold P, Behrens S, Schmezer P et al (2015) XRCC1 polymorphism associated with late toxicity after radiation therapy in breast cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92:1084–1092

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreassen CN, Rosenstein BS, Kerns SL et al (2016) Individual patient data metaanalysis shows a significant association between the ATM RS1801516 SNP and toxicity after radiotherapy in 5456 breast and prostate cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 121:431–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnett GC, Thompson D, Fachal L et al (2014) A genome wide association study (GWAS) providing evidence of an association between common genetic variants and late radiotherapy toxicity. Radiother Oncol 111:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Livi L, Meattini I, Scotti V et al (2011) Concomitant adjuvant chemo-radiation therapy with anthracyclinebased regimens in breast cancer: a single centre experience. Radiol med 116:1050–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0652-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reverberi C, Marinelli L, Campanella B et al (2020) Post-mastectomy immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy: long term results of a mono institutional experience. Radiol med 125:887–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01161-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnett GC, Kerns SL, Noble DJ et al (2015) Incorporating genetic biomarkers into predictive models of normal tissue toxicity. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 27:579–587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kerns SL, de Ruysscher D, Andreassen CN et al (2014) STROGAR – strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies in radiogenomics. Radiother Oncol 110:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rancati T, Fiorino C, Fellin G et al (2011) Inclusion of clinical risk factors into NTCP modelling of late rectal toxicity after high dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 100:124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Franco P, De Rose F, De Santis MC et al (2020) Omission of postoperative radiation after breast conserving surgery: a progressive paradigm shift towards precision medicine. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2020.02.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Seibold P, Webb A, Aguado-Barrera ME et al (2019) REQUITE: A prospective multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast, lung or prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 138:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jamshed S (2014) Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. J Basic Clin Pharm 5(4):87–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rattay T, Symonds RP, Shokuhi S et al (2018) The patient perspective on radiogenomics testing for breast radiation toxicity. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 30(3):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2017.12.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nold RJ, Beamer RL, Helmer SD et al (2000) Factors influencing a woman’s choice to undergo breast-conserving surgery versus modified radical mastectomy. Am J Surg 180(6):413–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00501-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shaverdian N, Wang X, Hegde JV et al (2018) The patient’s perspective on breast radiotherapy: Initial fears and expectations versus reality. Cancer 124(8):1673–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abul-Husn NS, Owusu Obeng A, Sanderson SC et al (2014) Implementation and utilization of genetic testing in personalized medicine. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 7:227–240

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sinding C, Hudak P, Wiernikowski J et al (2010) “I like to be an informed person but…” negotiating responsibility for treatment decisions in cancer care. Soc Sci Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leech M, Katz MS, Kazmierska J et al (2020) Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better? Mol Oncol 14(7):1442–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12675

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Menichetti J, Valdagni R, Bellardita L (2018) Quality of life in active surveillance and the associations with decision-making-a literature review. Transl Androl Urol 7(1):160–169. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care. Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. (CG76). London: royal college of general practitioners; 2009. Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG76. (Guideline Ref ID NCCPC2009A)

  25. Lawler M, Banks I, Law L et al (2016) The European Cancer Patient’s Bill of Rights, update and implementation 2016. ESMO Open 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Manchikanti L, Caraway DL, Parr AT et al (2011) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: reforming the health care reform for the new decade. Pain Physician 14(1):E35–E67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Salzburg Global Seminar (2011) Salzburg statement on shared decision making. BMJ, 342:d1745, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1745

  28. Roberts JS, Gornick MC, Le LQ et al (2019) MI-ONCOSEQ Study team Next-generation sequencing in precision oncology: Patient understanding and expectations. Cancer Med 8(1):227–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fenton AT, Anderson EC, Scharnetzki E et al (2021) Differences in cancer patients’ and clinicians’ preferences for disclosure of uncertain genomic tumor testing result. Patient Educ Couns 104(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bellardita L, Sobrero AI, Maiello E (2017) Processi decisionali nella pratica clinica del paziente con mCRC, Edra.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all patients that participated in the REQUITE study and all REQUITE staff at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan.

Funding

REQUITE received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no. 601826.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tiziana Rancati and Laura Lozza have equally contributed to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prostate Cancer Program, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy

    Lara Bellardita, Simona Gay, Federica Palorini, Riccardo Valdagni & Tiziana Rancati

  2. Department of Radiotherapy, Università Degli Studi Di Milano Bicocca, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo Ray Colciago & Riccardo Valdagni

  3. Radiation Oncology 1 Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy

    Sarah Frasca, Maria Carmen De Santis, Eliana La Rocca, Riccardo Valdagni & Laura Lozza

  4. Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Eliana La Rocca & Riccardo Valdagni

Authors
  1. Lara Bellardita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Ray Colciago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Frasca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Carmen De Santis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simona Gay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Federica Palorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eliana La Rocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Riccardo Valdagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tiziana Rancati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Laura Lozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Carmen De Santis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The present study has been reviewed and approved by the Internal Review Board of the Department of Radiation Oncology 1 of National Cancer Institute, Milan, Italy.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bellardita, L., Colciago, R.R., Frasca, S. et al. Breast cancer patient perspective on opportunities and challenges of a genetic test aimed to predict radio-induced side effects before treatment: Analysis of the Italian branch of the REQUITE project. Radiol med 126, 1366–1373 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-021-01395-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-021-01395-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation