Elise Martin

En France, le cancer du sein est le cancer le plus fréquent chez les femmes et la deuxième cause de décès par cancer. Si la mortalité relative du cancer du sein a diminué ces dernières années, de nombreux progrès restent à faire pour les 20 à 25 % de patientes qui évoluent vers un stade métastatique. Cette étude s’appuie sur la réalisation de 103 entretiens semi-directifs réalisés auprès d’acteurs de la prise en charge en oncologie et de patientes atteintes de cancer du sein métastatique. L’objectif de ce travail de thèse était d’étudier : l’impact des nouvelles thérapies ciblées sur l’organisation de la prise en charge et leur diffusion, le vécu des patientes avec les traitements et leur adhésion thérapeutique. Nous avons montré, dans un premier temps, que les nouvelles thérapies ciblées orales modifient la prise en charge traditionnelle des patientes qui restent moins dans la sphère d’influence de la structure de soins et qu’il existe de nombreux freins à la diffusion de ces traitements chez les oncologues. Dans un deuxième temps, nous avons mis en avant les représentations positives des patientes sur les thérapies ciblées orales qui sont sources d’espoir et améliorent la qualité de vie. Pour autant, le vécu au quotidien vient parfois nuancer ces représentations et peut révéler des freins à l’adhésion thérapeutique tels que l’apparition d’effets secondaires ou les responsabilités engendrées par la demande d’autonomie. Enfin, dans un troisième temps, nous avons mis en exergue le manque de connaissances des patientes sur les innovations thérapeutiques et l’importance de la décision partagée avec l’oncologue tout particulièrement face à la chronicisation progressive de certains cancers du sein métastatiques.

PurposeThe European Oncology Quality of Life (EUonQoL) project aims to develop a questionnaire toolkit (EUonQoL-Kit) to assess the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients and survivors across Europe.MethodsThe EUonQoL-Kit development used mixed-methods and a co-design approach. Data was collected in six countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and UK). The target populations were patients in active treatment (A), survivors (B) and patients requiring palliative care (C). A review of existing QoL theoretical models produced an initial EUonQoL conceptual framework. Semi-structured interviews and a Delphi survey evaluated/modified the framework. Existing validated items were used to construct the toolkit, including Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT), where available. A usability study evaluated EUonQoL-Kit.v1. Data triangulation and consensus methodology guided EUonQoL-Kit.v2.ResultsThe initial conceptual framework covered four multi-dimensional domains: physical, social and overall health, and psychological wellbeing. The interviews and Delphi survey included 75 and 155 participants, respectively. The domain ‘healthcare experience’ was identified and included in the framework. EUonQoL-Kit.v1 resulted in three static questionnaires, one for each target population (n items- A=75; B=67; C=79). Following usability testing with 53 participants, EUonQoL-Kit.v2 was produced via a multi-stakeholder consensus development panel, creating a shortened version (n items- A=50; B=50; C=44). Dynamic versions of these questionnaires were developed using the EORTC CAT Core system.ConclusionsEUonQoL-Kit is a novel toolkit developed to assess QoL across the cancer continuum and inform health policy within Europe. Its psychometric properties are currently being evaluated using data collected on more than 4200 patients across 32 countries.

Background: De-escalation trials aim to balance clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL), especially for premenopausal women with early breast cancer (BC), who often experience a greater treatment burden affecting their physical and psychosocial well-being. We sought to understand their patient journey—barriers, facilitators, and expectations—when joining de-escalation trials to inform patient-centered design and implementation.Methods: OPTIMA-YOUNG, an EU-co-funded international trial, investigates a genomic assay-guided approach to de-escalate chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with early-stage hormone receptor (HR)+ BC. A Co-creation Board of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) ensured stakeholder involvement throughout the trial. Focus groups (FGs) explored decision-making, needs, and QoL priorities related to joining a de-escalation clinical trial. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using MAXQDA software.Results: The three FGs included 20 participants (11 patients, 9 HCPs) from 14 countries. Three themes emerged: 1) emotional and cognitive responses to BC diagnosis/treatment; 2) environmental, HCP, and social influences on choices; 3) coping with side effects and QoL challenges. Barriers to joining a de-escalation trial included limited emotional support at diagnosis, cross-country variations in shared decision-making, poor communication on long-term side effects, fear of recurrence, and HCPs’ tendency to overtreat younger patients. Developing training for patients and HCPs was seen essential for improving communication, shared decision-making skills, and enhancing symptom management and QoL.Conclusions: This pre-implementation study identified factors at the patient, HCP, and system levels that, if addressed, could improve the trial experience. Insights helped refine the OPTIMA-YOUNG protocol and implementation plan and may inform future de-escalation trials.

Introduction: The MEDEA randomized clinical trial evaluated the impact of a telephone‐based weight loss intervention focused on calorie restriction and lifestyle behavior change among overweight and obese breast cancer (BC) patients on cancer‐related fatigue in France. The intervention was linguistically and culturally adapted from the North American BWEL‐A011401. Since patient acceptability and engagement with weight loss interventions are influenced by cross‐country cultural differences in dietary, social, and behavioral habits, we conducted a qualitative study to explore these factors and inform future implementation. Methods: Among 220 patients with Stage I–III BC who participated in MEDEA, 110 were randomized to receive the weight loss intervention delivered by dietitians through 24 semistructured calls over 12 months. Twenty patients receiving the intervention accepted participation in four focus groups to explore barriers and facilitators for uptake and engagement, as well as acceptability, satisfaction, and improvement suggestions. A thematic content analysis was performed using Nvivo12 software. Results: Four focus groups were conducted. Overall, patients generally expressed positive perceptions of the intervention, highlighting several key themes: (1) satisfaction with the intervention, reporting objective benefits, including measurable weight loss and reduced symptom burden; (2) recognition of intervention as a catalyst for sustainable behavioral change; and (3) appreciation for the convenience of a telephone‐based format. However, participants also identified several barriers to uptake and engagement, along with suggestions for improvement: (1) The need for tools to sustain engagement such as postintervention follow‐up calls, psychological support, and resources for self‐monitoring; (2) for the importance of further cultural adaptation; and (3) a call for a more patient‐centered research ecosystem, encompassing the selection of relevant patient‐reported outcomes, improved communication, and enhanced community‐building efforts). Conclusions: The MEDEA intervention was found to be acceptable and positively experienced, suggesting that a North American weight loss program seems adaptable to a different language and cultural context. This qualitative analysis also informed refinements to optimize weight loss interventions in a European context. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04303924

Background: Supportive care (SC) refers to the prevention and management of complications of cancer and its treatment. While it has long been recognized as an important cancer care delivery component, a high proportion of patients face unaddressed SC needs, calling for innovative approaches to deliver SC. Objective: The objective of this master protocol is to evaluate the implementation of different integrated proactive SC pathways across the cancer care continuum in our institution (Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France). Pathways studied in this master protocol may occur shortly after diagnosis to prevent treatment-related burden; during treatment to monitor the onset of toxicities and provide timely symptom management; and after treatment to improve rehabilitation, self-management skills, and social reintegration. Methods: This study is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of SC pathways on patients’ distress and unmet needs after 12 weeks, measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. Secondary objectives will focus on the pathways (macrolevel) and each SC intervention (microlevel), evaluating their reach (administrative data review of the absolute number and proportion of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients included in the pathways); short-term and long-term efficacy through their impact on quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire) and symptom burden (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and 22-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Sexual Health Questionnaire); adoption by patients and providers (administrative data review of SC referrals and attendance or use of SC strategies); barriers to and leverage for implementation (surveys and focus groups with patients, providers, and the hospital organization); and maintenance (cost-consequence analysis). Pilot evaluations with a minimum of 70 patients per pathway will be performed to generate mean Distress Thermometer scores and SDs informing the calculation of formal sample size needed for efficacy evaluation (cohorts will be enriched accordingly). Results: The study was approved by the ethics committee, and as of February 2024, a total of 12 patients were enrolled. Conclusions: This study will contribute toward innovative models of SC delivery and will inform the implementation of integrated SC pathways of care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06479057; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06479057 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/52841

BACKGROUND Supportive care (SC) refers to the prevention and management of complications of cancer and its treatment. While it has long been recognized as an important cancer care delivery component, a high proportion of patients face unaddressed SC needs, calling for innovative approaches to deliver SC. OBJECTIVE The objective of this master protocol is to evaluate the implementation of different integrated proactive SC pathways across the cancer care continuum in our institution (Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France). Pathways studied in this master protocol may occur shortly after diagnosis to prevent treatment-related burden; during treatment to monitor the onset of toxicities and provide timely symptom management; and after treatment to improve rehabilitation, self-management skills, and social reintegration. METHODS This study is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of SC pathways on patients’ distress and unmet needs after 12 weeks, measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Distress Thermometer and Problem List. Secondary objectives will focus on the pathways (macrolevel) and each SC intervention (microlevel), evaluating their reach (administrative data review of the absolute number and proportion of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients included in the pathways); short-term and long-term efficacy through their impact on quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire) and symptom burden (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and 22-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Sexual Health Questionnaire); adoption by patients and providers (administrative data review of SC referrals and attendance or use of SC strategies); barriers to and leverage for implementation (surveys and focus groups with patients, providers, and the hospital organization); and maintenance (cost-consequence analysis). Pilot evaluations with a minimum of 70 patients per pathway will be performed to generate mean Distress Thermometer scores and SDs informing the calculation of formal sample size needed for efficacy evaluation (cohorts will be enriched accordingly). RESULTS The study was approved by the ethics committee, and as of February 2024, a total of 12 patients were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS This study will contribute toward innovative models of SC delivery and will inform the implementation of integrated SC pathways of care. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06479057; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06479057 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/52841

PURPOSE: Optimal comprehensive survivorship care is insufficiently delivered. To increase patient empowerment and maximize the uptake of multidisciplinary supportive care strategies to serve all survivorship needs, we implemented a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer at the end of primary treatment phase. METHODS: Pathway components included (1) a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), (2) face-to-face survivorship education seminars and personalized consultation for supportive care referrals (Transition Day), (3) a mobile app delivering personalized education and self-management advice, and (4) decision aids for physicians focused on supportive care needs. A mixed-methods process evaluation was performed according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework including administrative data review, pathway experience survey (patient, physician, and organization), and focus group. The primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway (predefined progression criteria for pathway continuation ≥70%). RESULTS: Over 6 months, 321 patients were eligible for the pathway and received a SCP and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day. Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded. 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app. 96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway, whereas perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app. Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization. CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs. This study can inform the implementation of survivorship care pathways in other centers.

Purpose Return to work (RTW) after breast cancer (BC) can be a major challenge for patients. Multidisciplinary interventions seem to be effective but the role of digital solutions is under-developed and therefore not evaluated. We explored the preferences, needs, and barriers regarding RTW interventions, including opinions about the use of digital approaches to deliver such interventions. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on interviews with 30 patients with BC and 18 healthcare providers in four French regions. Emergent themes were identified using thematic content analysis. Results Most providers declared that they did not proactively address RTW with patients, mainly due to having other priorities and a lack of knowledge. The following themes emerged: several development and deployment barriers regarding RTW interventions exist, multidisciplinary interventions are preferred, and there is a need to maintain contact between the patient and workplace during sick leave, including pathways and interlocutors that can facilitate RTW. Participants had mostly positive representations of using digital tools to facilitate RTW; however, fear of loss of human contact and the exacerbation of inequalities were identified as possible risks associated with the development of digital-only interventions. Conclusions Interventions blending the needs and preferences of patients with BC and the healthcare system are warranted. A personalized multimodal approach with mixed digital and in-person features has surfaced as a possible solution to address the weaknesses of existing interventions. Implications for cancer survivors Since most women work at the time of diagnosis, it is of particular relevance to build interventions promoting RTW.