A George, R A Herbertson, A Stillie, S McCormack, A M Drean, A Wesselbaum, E Hudson, T Miles, N A J Ryan, H Maxwell, L Le Treust, M McCormack
{"title":"Current Management Practices for Endometrial Cancer (EC) in the UK: A National Healthcare Professional Survey (KNOW-EC).","authors":"A George, R A Herbertson, A Stillie, S McCormack, A M Drean, A Wesselbaum, E Hudson, T Miles, N A J Ryan, H Maxwell, L Le Treust, M McCormack","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2024.05.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The clinical landscape for endometrial cancer in the UK is evolving to include new management guidelines and targeted treatment options. An understanding of current treatment and management practices in the UK will help services plan and adapt to upcoming changes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this survey was to understand current and anticipated real-world practices for endometrial cancer care in the UK and potential areas for optimisation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Telephone interviews were conducted in November/December 2021 with UK-based healthcare professionals involved in endometrial cancer management. Questions were aligned with the British Gynaecological Cancer Society/European Society for Medical Oncology recommendations, covering the pathway from diagnosis and treatment to follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 63 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the management of patients with endometrial cancer participated in telephone interviews. The results highlighted variations in management and treatment practices for endometrial cancer and suggest that current UK practice appears to diverge from national and international guidance in some instances. While somatic mismatch repair deficiency testing was used by 89.7% of respondents as mainstream testing, the survey highlighted a lack of access to other key molecular biomarker tests, such as polymerase epsilon (POLE) sequencing (used by only 9.8% of HCPs at the time of the survey).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results highlighted several perceived practical barriers to the swift adoption of new therapeutic options, including funding access, limited staff, treatment-related resources, staff education, and support. Our findings support the need for better access to biomarkers that could enable more effective and targeted treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2024.05.017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The clinical landscape for endometrial cancer in the UK is evolving to include new management guidelines and targeted treatment options. An understanding of current treatment and management practices in the UK will help services plan and adapt to upcoming changes.
Aim: The purpose of this survey was to understand current and anticipated real-world practices for endometrial cancer care in the UK and potential areas for optimisation.
Materials and methods: Telephone interviews were conducted in November/December 2021 with UK-based healthcare professionals involved in endometrial cancer management. Questions were aligned with the British Gynaecological Cancer Society/European Society for Medical Oncology recommendations, covering the pathway from diagnosis and treatment to follow-up.
Results: A total of 63 healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the management of patients with endometrial cancer participated in telephone interviews. The results highlighted variations in management and treatment practices for endometrial cancer and suggest that current UK practice appears to diverge from national and international guidance in some instances. While somatic mismatch repair deficiency testing was used by 89.7% of respondents as mainstream testing, the survey highlighted a lack of access to other key molecular biomarker tests, such as polymerase epsilon (POLE) sequencing (used by only 9.8% of HCPs at the time of the survey).
Conclusion: The results highlighted several perceived practical barriers to the swift adoption of new therapeutic options, including funding access, limited staff, treatment-related resources, staff education, and support. Our findings support the need for better access to biomarkers that could enable more effective and targeted treatments.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oncology is an International cancer journal covering all aspects of the clinical management of cancer patients, reflecting a multidisciplinary approach to therapy. Papers, editorials and reviews are published on all types of malignant disease embracing, pathology, diagnosis and treatment, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, combined modality treatment and palliative care. Research and review papers covering epidemiology, radiobiology, radiation physics, tumour biology, and immunology are also published, together with letters to the editor, case reports and book reviews.