Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer - current treatment strategies in the Nordics: a modified Delphi study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Antonis Valachis, Peeter Karihtala, Jürgen Geisler, Malgorzata K Tuxen
{"title":"Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer - current treatment strategies in the Nordics: a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Antonis Valachis, Peeter Karihtala, Jürgen Geisler, Malgorzata K Tuxen","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>This study aimed to assess current treatment strategies for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) and the perceptions of clinical experts in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland, comparing them to international guidelines to provide insights into how these therapies are implemented and adapted to national Nordic guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-round modified Delphi method was followed with consensus defined as 70% agreement. A steering committee selected 20 experienced oncologists as panellists and developed the questionnaires. Questions included items related to treatment preferences in different treatment lines with different clinical scenarios in mTNBC patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the first round, eight out of 33 questions on clinical treatment reached consensus with 14 out of 27 in the second round reaching consensus. In round three, eight out of eight questions reached consensus. The preferred treatment for mTNBC patients with PD-L1 positive was checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with chemotherapy. For patients with germline BRCA mutation and PD-L1 negative disease, PARP-inhibitors were preferred as 1L and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in both 2L and later lines. Disagreement was observed for chemotherapy in later lines where evidence is sparse or lacking.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The high level of consensus for new treatment strategies, such as CPI and PARP-inhibitors in 1L and SG in 2L or later lines, in comparison with the limited consensus for older treatments, such as chemotherapy, may reflect the growing academic evidence for different treatment strategies. Understanding the treatment patterns across different countries contributes to gaining consensus on the upcoming therapeutic advances.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"64 ","pages":"349-357"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.42733","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: This study aimed to assess current treatment strategies for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) and the perceptions of clinical experts in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland, comparing them to international guidelines to provide insights into how these therapies are implemented and adapted to national Nordic guidelines.

Methods: A three-round modified Delphi method was followed with consensus defined as 70% agreement. A steering committee selected 20 experienced oncologists as panellists and developed the questionnaires. Questions included items related to treatment preferences in different treatment lines with different clinical scenarios in mTNBC patients.

Results: In the first round, eight out of 33 questions on clinical treatment reached consensus with 14 out of 27 in the second round reaching consensus. In round three, eight out of eight questions reached consensus. The preferred treatment for mTNBC patients with PD-L1 positive was checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with chemotherapy. For patients with germline BRCA mutation and PD-L1 negative disease, PARP-inhibitors were preferred as 1L and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in both 2L and later lines. Disagreement was observed for chemotherapy in later lines where evidence is sparse or lacking.

Interpretation: The high level of consensus for new treatment strategies, such as CPI and PARP-inhibitors in 1L and SG in 2L or later lines, in comparison with the limited consensus for older treatments, such as chemotherapy, may reflect the growing academic evidence for different treatment strategies. Understanding the treatment patterns across different countries contributes to gaining consensus on the upcoming therapeutic advances.

背景和目的:本研究旨在评估目前转移性三阴性乳腺癌(mTNBC)的治疗策略以及瑞典、丹麦、挪威、芬兰和冰岛临床专家的看法,并将其与国际指南进行比较,以深入了解这些疗法是如何实施的,以及如何适应北欧国家指南:方法:采用三轮改良德尔菲法,共识定义为 70% 的一致意见。指导委员会挑选了 20 位经验丰富的肿瘤专家作为小组成员,并编制了调查问卷。问题包括与 mTNBC 患者不同临床情况下不同治疗方案的治疗偏好相关的项目:在第一轮中,33 个临床治疗问题中有 8 个达成了共识,在第二轮中,27 个问题中有 14 个达成了共识。在第三轮中,8 个问题中有 8 个达成了共识。PD-L1阳性的mTNBC患者首选的治疗方法是检查点抑制剂(CPI)联合化疗。对于有生殖系 BRCA 基因突变且 PD-L1 阴性的患者,PARP 抑制剂是首选的 1L 治疗方法,而 sacituzumab govitecan (SG) 则是 2L 及以后治疗方法的首选。在证据稀少或缺乏证据的晚期患者中,对化疗的选择存在分歧:对于新的治疗策略,如 CPI 和 PARP 抑制剂(1L)以及 SG(2L 或更晚期)的共识程度较高,而对于老的治疗策略,如化疗的共识程度有限,这可能反映出不同治疗策略的学术证据在不断增加。了解不同国家的治疗模式有助于就即将到来的治疗进展达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信