Table 2 Data from pre‐consultation baseline survey.
| Number | % | Mean | Median | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Before the announcement by the DH that all women presenting with early breast cancer should be tested for HER2 (i.e. “blanket” HER2 testing*), which of the following most accurately reflects the practice at your centre? | |||||
| n = 154 | |||||
| Blanket prospective | 38 | 25 | – | – | – |
| Selective prospective | 58 | 38 | – | – | – |
| Blanket retrospective | 4 | 3 | – | – | – |
| Selective retrospective (only) | 54 | 35 | – | – | – |
| (2) After the announcement by the DH, which of the following now applies most accurately to your centre? | |||||
| n = 154 | |||||
| (a) Plans and infrastructure in place for blanket testing | 52 | 34 | – | – | – |
| (b) Blanket HER2 testing when infrastructure in place | 88 | 57 | – | – | – |
| (c) No plans to introduce blanket testing | 14 | 9 | – | – | – |
| (3) Which of the following currently represent the greatest barriers to initiating blanket prospective HER2 testing in your centre? (Respondents checking 2b only) | |||||
| n = 89 | |||||
| Shortfall of pathologists | 84 | – | 2.39 | 2 | 1.20 |
| Inadequate funds | 89 | – | 4.54 | 5 | 0.98 |
| Inadequate capacity to cope with extra demand | 83 | – | 3.46 | 4 | 1.34 |
| Shortfall of adequate expertise/experience in HER2 testing | 83 | – | 2.29 | 2 | 1.53 |
| Absence of local laboratory services with HER2 testing capability | 81 | – | 2.44 | 1 | 1.72 |
| Absence of central laboratory services with HER2 testing capability | 81 | – | 1.74 | 1 | 1.22 |
| Ability to meet NEQAS standards for QA/QC | 78 | – | 1.97 | 1 | 1.33 |
| (4) On what basis will women diagnosed with breast cancer be selected for HER2 testing? (Respondents checking 2c only) | |||||
| n = 55 | |||||
| On the basis of type of carcinoma | 22 | 27 | – | – | – |
| On the basis of fitness for chemotherapy | 24 | 30 | – | – | – |
| Other selection criteria (stated) | 22 | 27 | – | – | – |
| (5) In your opinion does an adequate infrastructure already in your area exist to service blanket HER2 testing? | |||||
| n = 116 | |||||
| Yes | 47 | 41 | – | – | – |
| No | 69 | 59 | – | – | – |
| (If No to above) within what timeframe do you expect an effective infrastructure to be in place? | |||||
| n = 63 | |||||
| Less than 6 months | 20 | 32 | – | – | – |
| 6–12 months | 24 | 38 | – | – | – |
| 12–24 months | 14 | 22 | – | – | – |
| More than 24 months | 5 | 8 | – | – | – |
| (6) Thinking generally about the development of an effective infrastructure required for blanket testing of HER2, how important, in your opinion, do you think the following issues are (on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the most important)? | |||||
| n = 156 | |||||
| Availability of local laboratory services with HER2 testing capability | 147 | – | 3.29 | 3 | 1.54 |
| Availability of central laboratory services with HER2 testing capability | 151 | – | 3.81 | 4 | 1.33 |
| Increased capacity within current testing structure | 150 | – | 4.15 | 5 | 1.12 |
| Availability/number of pathologists | 153 | – | 3.84 | 4 | 1.13 |
| Adequate training of pathologists | 151 | – | 3.99 | 4 | 1.13 |
| Ability to meet NEQAS standards for QA/QC | 149 | – | 4.39 | 5 | 1.01 |
| Adequate funding | 155 | – | 4.80 | 5 | 0.78 |
| Availability of adequate expertise/experience in HER2 testing | 155 | – | 4.43 | 5 | 0.94 |
| Ability to link up with other networks/centres with FISH capacity | 154 | – | 4.23 | 5 | 1.14 |
| (7) To what extent do you think there will be an increased litigation risk to trusts as a result of the Hewitt decision—for example, in those cases where patients were denied access to HER2 testing because infrastructure was not able to cope with demand, or else the testing was not carried to the required standard resulting in missed positives? | |||||
| n = 153 | |||||
| Greatly | 66 | 43 | – | – | – |
| Somewhat | 83 | 54 | – | – | – |
| Not at all | 4 | 3 | – | – | – |
DH, Department of Health; FISH, in situ hybridisation; NEQAS, national external quality assessment scheme; QA, quality assessment; QC, quality control.