Intensive follow-up for women with breast cancer: review of clinical, economic and patient's preference domains through evidence to decision framework

Decision aids for cancer survivors' engagement with survivorship care services after primary treatment: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To elucidate existing decision aids (DAs) in supporting cancer survivors' decisions to engage in cancer survivorship care services after primary treatment. Secondary objectives are to assess the DA acceptability, impact of DAs, and implementation barriers.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched to collect publications from inception through September 2021. Studies describing the development or evaluation of DAs used for survivorship care services after primary cancer treatment were included. Article selection and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies that described 13 DAs and addressed multiple survivorship care domains: prevention of recurrence/new cancers in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and breast cancer gene mutation carriers, family building options, health insurance plans, health promotion (substance use behavior, cardiovascular disease risk reduction), advanced care planning, and post-treatment follow-up intensity. The electronic format was used to design most DAs for self-administration. The content presentation covered decisional context, options, and value clarification exercises. DAs were acceptable and associated with higher knowledge but presented inconclusive decisional outcomes. Implementation barriers included lack of design features for connectivity to care, low self-efficacy, and low perceived DA usefulness among healthcare professionals. Other survivor characteristics included age, literacy, preferred timing, and setting.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of DAs exists in survivorship care services engagement with favorable knowledge outcomes. Future work should clarify the impact of DAs on decisional outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

DA characterization and suggestions for prospective developers could enhance support for cancer survivors encountering complex decisions throughout the survivorship continuum.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on follow-up of patients with early breast cancer: A patient survey

PURPOSE

Despite limited evidence supporting its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend long-term, routinely scheduled in-person surveillance of patients with early breast cancer (EBC). The COVID-19 pandemic led to increased use of virtual care. This survey evaluated patient perspectives on follow-up care.

METHODS

Patients with EBC undergoing surveillance were surveyed about follow-up protocols, perceptions, and interest in clinical trials assessing different follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

Of 402 approached patients 270 completed the survey (response rate 67%). Median age 62.5 years (range 25-86) and median time since breast cancer diagnosis was 3.8 years (range < 1-33 years). Most (n = 148/244, 60%) were followed by more than one provider. Routine follow-ups with breast examination were mostly conducted by medical/radiation oncologists every 6 months (n = 110/236, 46%) or annually (n = 106/236, 44%). Participants felt routine follow-up was useful to monitor for recurrence, manage side effects of cancer treatment and to provide support/reassurance. Most participants felt regular follow-up care would detect recurrent cancer earlier (n = 214/255, 96%) and increase survival (n = 218/249, 88%). The COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of in-person visits for 54% of patients (n = 63/117). Patients were concerned this reduction of in-person visits would lead to later detection of both local (n = 29/63, 46%) and distant recurrences (n = 25/63, 40%). While many felt their medical and radiation oncologists were the most suited to provide follow-up care, 55% felt comfortable having their primary care provider (PCP) conduct surveillance. When presented with a scenario where follow-up has no effect on earlier detection or survival, 70% of patients still wanted routine in-person follow-up for reassurance (63%) with the goal of earlier recurrence detection (56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limited evidence of effectiveness of routine in-person assessment, patients continue to place importance on regularly scheduled in-person follow-up.

Patients' experiences of engaging with electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after the completion of radiation therapy for breast cancer: a pilot service evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Over 60 % of people who develop breast cancer will receive radiation therapy (RT) as part of their treatment. Side effects of RT may include inflammation, erythema, desquamation and fatigue. Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (ePROMs) enable patients to report side effects prior to their scheduled post-RT appointment. This pilot service evaluation aims to explore patients' perceptions regarding the value of the ePROM system, ease of its use and barriers to using the system, after breast irradiation.

METHODS

From July-November 2021, evaluation surveys were posted to 100 people who had received RT to their breast to explore their experience of using the ePROM. Ethical approval was obtained through Ulster University and the Western Health and Social Care Trust (WHSCT), Northern Ireland.

RESULTS

Fifty-two people responded to the survey, of which 27 respondents indicated that they had accessed the ePROM. Despite few participants experiencing significant side effects, the majority of participants recommended the ePROM indicating that it was an important source of support. Those who experienced significant side effects found the system to be prompt and effective. Barriers to accessing the ePROM included technical issues with the link, concerns about confidentiality and forgetting to access the link. Access to the ePROM increased with higher education levels.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot service evaluation demonstrated that ePROMs are valued by patients and can provide rapid real-time access to support, offering individual care and reassurance. For patients with longer RT schedules (>10 fractions), the introduction of ePROMs during RT was viewed favourably by participants. All patients may benefit from the option of receiving ePROMs post-RT.

Personalized surveillance and aftercare for non-metastasized breast cancer: the NABOR study protocol of a multiple interrupted time series design

BACKGROUND

Follow-up of curatively treated primary breast cancer patients consists of surveillance and aftercare and is currently mostly the same for all patients. A more personalized approach, based on patients' individual risk of recurrence and personal needs and preferences, may reduce patient burden and reduce (healthcare) costs. The NABOR study will examine the (cost-)effectiveness of personalized surveillance (PSP) and personalized aftercare plans (PAP) on patient-reported cancer worry, self-rated and overall quality of life and (cost-)effectiveness.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter multiple interrupted time series (MITs) design is being used. In this design, 10 participating hospitals will be observed for a period of eighteen months, while they -stepwise- will transit from care as usual to PSPs and PAPs. The PSP contains decisions on the surveillance trajectory based on individual risks and needs, assessed with the 'Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid' including the INFLUENCE prediction tool. The PAP contains decisions on the aftercare trajectory based on individual needs and preferences and available care resources, which decision-making is supported by a patient decision aid. Patients are non-metastasized female primary breast cancer patients (N = 1040) who are curatively treated and start follow-up care. Patient reported outcomes will be measured at five points in time during two years of follow-up care (starting about one year after treatment and every six months thereafter). In addition, data on diagnostics and hospital visits from patients' Electronical Health Records (EHR) will be gathered. Primary outcomes are patient-reported cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale) and overall quality of life (as assessed with EQ-VAS score). Secondary outcomes include health care costs and resource use, health-related quality of life (as measured with EQ5D-5L/SF-12/EORTC-QLQ-C30), risk perception, shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, societal participation, and cost-effectiveness. Next, the uptake and appreciation of personalized plans and patients' experiences of their decision-making process will be evaluated.

DISCUSSION

This study will contribute to insight in the (cost-)effectiveness of personalized follow-up care and contributes to development of uniform evidence-based guidelines, stimulating sustainable implementation of personalized surveillance and aftercare plans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study sponsor: ZonMw. Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (2023), ID: NCT05975437.

Needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors regarding outcome-based shared decision-making about personalised post-treatment surveillance

PURPOSE

In this study, we explored how patients experience current information provision and decision-making about post-treatment surveillance after breast cancer. Furthermore, we assessed patients' perspectives regarding less intensive surveillance in case of a low risk of recurrence.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 women in the post-treatment surveillance trajectory in seven Dutch teaching hospitals.

RESULTS

Although the majority of participants indicated a desire for shared decision-making (SDM) about post-treatment surveillance, participants experienced no SDM. Information provision was often suboptimal and unstructured. Participants were open for using risk information in decision-making, but hesitant towards less intensive surveillance. Perceived advantages of less intensive surveillance were: less distressing moments, leaving the patient role behind, and lower burden. Disadvantages were: fewer moments for reassurance, fear of missing recurrences, and a higher threshold for aftercare for side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM about post-treatment surveillance is desirable. Although women are hesitant about less intensive surveillance, they are open to the use of personalised risk assessment for recurrences in decision-making about surveillance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To facilitate SDM about post-treatment surveillance, the timing and content of information provision should be improved. Risk information should be provided in an accessible and understandable way. Moreover, fear of cancer recurrence and other personal considerations should be addressed in the process of SDM.

Patients' experiences of a suppoRted self-manAGeMent pAThway In breast Cancer (PRAGMATIC): quality of life and service use results

PURPOSE

To describe trends and explore factors associated with quality of life (QoL) and psychological morbidity and assess breast cancer (BC) health service use over a 12-month period for patients joining the supported self-management (SSM)/patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) pathway.

METHODS

Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months that measured QoL (FACT-B, EQ 5D-5L), self-efficacy (GSE), psychological morbidity (GHQ-12), roles and responsibilities (PRRS) and service use (cost diary).

RESULTS

99/110 patients completed all timepoints; 32% (35/110) had received chemotherapy. The chemotherapy group had poorer QoL; FACT-B total score mean differences were 8.53 (95% CI: 3.42 to 13.64), 5.38 (95% CI: 0.17 to 10.58) and 8.00 (95% CI: 2.76 to 13.24) at 6, 9 and 12 months, respectively. The odds of psychological morbidity (GHQ12 >4) were 5.5-fold greater for those treated with chemotherapy. Financial and caring burdens (PRRS) were worse for this group (mean difference in change at 9 months 3.25 (95% CI: 0.42 to 6.07)). GSE and GHQ-12 scores impacted FACT-B total scores, indicating QoL decline for those with high baseline psychological morbidity. Chemotherapy patients or those with high psychological morbidity or were unable to carry out normal activities had the highest service costs. Over the 12 months, 68.2% participants phoned/emailed breast care nurses, and 53.3% visited a hospital breast clinician.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that chemotherapy patients and/or those with heightened psychological morbidity might benefit from closer monitoring and/or supportive interventions whilst on the SSM/PIFU pathway. Reduced access due to COVID-19 could have affected service use.

Patient Preferences in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

People with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have diverse medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that require multidimensional care. Understanding patient preferences is crucial to tailor treatments, services, and foster patient-centered care. A scoping review was performed to summarize the current evidence on the preferences of people with MBC regarding their care to identify knowledge gaps and key areas for future research. The Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched. Twenty studies enrolling 3354 patients met the study eligibility criteria. Thirteen quantitative studies, four mixed methods studies, and three qualitative studies were included. Seven studies captured healthcare provider perspectives; thirteen studies evaluated patient preferences relating specifically to cancer treatments; three studies evaluated preferences relating to supportive care; and four studies evaluated communication and decision-making preferences. The current literature evaluating MBC patient preferences is heterogeneous with a focus on cancer treatments. Future research should explore patient preferences relating to multidisciplinary, multi-modal care that aims to improve quality of life. Understanding MBC patient preferences regarding their comprehensive care can help tailor healthcare delivery, enhance the patient experience, and improve outcomes.

How Frequently Should Patients with Breast Cancer Have Routine Follow-Up Visits?

Prospective Data Regarding the Optimal Frequency and ModalityProspective data regarding the optimal frequency and modality of follow up after definitive therapy for localized breast cancer is lacking, especially as it relates to time to recurrence detection. This article reviews the evidence and proposes a randomized trial to evaluate on-demand versus guideline-based survivorship care.

Dual neoadjuvant blockade plus chemotherapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of women with non-metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review updated until July 2022. The outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), clinical response, event-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified eleven randomized clinical trials (2836 patients). When comparing paclitaxel plus dual treatment versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab or lapatinib, dual treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.02-4.10). Addition of a taxane to an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, plus lapatinib or trastuzumab, showed that the dual treatment was better than lapatinib alone (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.41-4.34), or trastuzumab alone (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.13-3.16). Dual treatment may result in an increase in survival outcomes and tumour clinical response, although such benefits are not consistent for all the combinations studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual blockade with combinations of trastuzumab and pertuzumab can be recommended for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with HER2-positive breast cancer. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018110273.

Yield of Surveillance Imaging After Mastectomy With or Without Reconstruction for Patients With Prior Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

A discrepancy on current guidelines and clinical practice exists regarding routine imaging surveillance after mastectomy, mainly regarding the lack of adequate evidence for imaging in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the usefulness of imaging surveillance in terms of cancer detection and interval cancer rates after mastectomy with or without reconstruction for patients with prior breast cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 3 electronic databases-PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus-without year restriction. References from relevant reviews and eligible studies were also manually searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were defined as those conducting surveillance imaging (mammography, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) of patients with prior breast cancer after mastectomy with or without reconstruction that presented adequate data to calculate cancer detection rates for each surveillance method.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent data extraction by 2 investigators with consensus on discrepant results was performed. A quality assessment of studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) template. The generalized linear mixed model framework with both fixed-effects and random-effects models was used to meta-analyze the proportion of cases across studies including 3 variables: surveillance method, reconstruction after mastectomy, and surveillance measure.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Three outcome measures were calculated for each eligible study and each surveillance imaging method within studies: overall cancer detection (defined as ipsilateral cancer, both palpable and nonpalpable) rate per 1000 examinations, clinically occult (nonpalpable) cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations, and interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled overall cancer detection rates per 1000 examinations were 1.86 (95% CI, 1.05-3.30) for mammography, 2.66 (95% CI, 1.48-4.76) for ultrasonography, and 5.17 (95% CI, 1.49-17.75) for MRI. For mastectomy without reconstruction, the rate of clinically occult (nonpalpable) cancer per 1000 examinations (2.96; 95% CI, 1.38-6.32) and the interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations (3.73; 95% CI, 0.84-3.98) were lower than the overall cancer detection rate (including both palpable and nonpalpable lesions) per 1000 examinations (6.41; 95% CI, 3.09-13.25) across all imaging modalities. The interval cancer rate per 1000 examinations for mastectomy with reconstruction (3.73; 95% CI, 0.41-2.73) was comparable to the pooled cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (4.73; 95% CI, 2.32-9.63) across all imaging modalities. In all clinical scenarios and imaging modalities, lower rates of clinically occult cancer compared with cancer detection rates were observed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lower detection rates of clinically occult-compared with overall-cancer across all 3 imaging modalities challenge the use of imaging surveillance after mastectomy, with or without reconstruction. Findings suggest that imaging surveillance in this context is unnecessary in clinical practice, at least until further studies demonstrate otherwise. Future studies should consider using the clinically occult cancer detection rate as a more clinically relevant measure in this setting.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Health care professionals' perspectives on shared decision making supported by personalised‐risk‐for‐recurrences‐calculations regarding surveillance after breast cancer

Objective

Breast cancer patients for whom less intensive surveillance is sufficient can be identified based on the risk for locoregional recurrences (LRRs). This study explores health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on less intensive surveillance, preferences for shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance and perspectives on the use of patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs in decision‐making about surveillance.

Methods

We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 21 HCPs providing follow‐up care for breast cancer patients in seven Dutch teaching hospitals (Santeon hospitals).

Results

HCPs were predominantly positive about less intensive surveillance for women with a low risk for recurrences. They mentioned important prerequisites such as clearly defined surveillance schedules based on risk categories, information provision and communication support for patients and HCPs. Most HCPs supported SDM about surveillance and were positive about using patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs. HCPs specified prerequisites such as clear visualisation and explanation of risk information, attention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and defined surveillance schedules for specific risk groups.

Conclusion

Mentioned prerequisites for less intensive surveillance need to be accounted for. Information needs and existing misconceptions need to be addressed. Outcome information regarding risks for LRRs and FCR can enrich the SDM process about surveillance.

Adherence to Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines and Health Care Utilization Patterns Among Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Survivors in Singapore

Currently, limited information is available on care provided to breast cancer survivors in Singapore. This study aims to assess the quality of post-treatment cancer survivorship care among breast cancer survivors on the basis of compliance with international guidelines up to 5 years post-primary treatment.

We evaluated the adherence to international breast cancer survivorship care guidelines in Singapore.

Risk for relapse and death after adjuvant chemotherapy associated with SNPs in patients with breast cancer - A retrospective study

For the women breast cancer (BC) patients included in this retrospective study, the first line of systemic treatment in adjuvant modality for breast cancer (BC) after surgery was fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC). The aim of our investigation was to analyze the prognostic biomarkers for relapse and death of patients eight to ten years after chemotherapy in association with nausea and vomiting.

METHOD

This retrospective study included 114 patients treated between 2010 and 2013. Blood samples for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) analysis before the chemotherapy treatment were collected. The medical records were used to determine relapses and death.

RESULTS

Sixteen percent relapsed and 9 % died during the follow-up period. SNPs located in the genes ESR and CASP9 were associated with both relapse and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Relapse and death were at a relative moderate level and consistent with other studies. Two SNPs in the Estrogen hormone receptor gene ESR1 and the apoptosis execution gene Caspases 9 (Casp9) were found to be associated with a higher risk of relapse and death. These findings suggest the possible value of blood biomarkers in the selection of individual treatments in the clinical setting.

Clinical impact of follow-up imaging on mortality in Korean breast cancer patients: A national cohort study

Background

As the incidence of breast cancer has increased and the survival rate has improved, supporting the optimal follow‐up strategy has become an important issue. This study aimed to evaluate follow‐up imaging usage after breast cancer surgery and the implications on mortality in Korea.

Methods

This study included 96,575 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 2002–2010 and registered in the Korea Central Cancer Registry, Statistics Korea, and Korean National Health Insurance Service. We evaluated the frequency of breast imaging (mammography and breast MRI) and systemic imaging for evaluating the presence of distant metastasis (chest CT, bone scan, and PET‐CT), and performed analyses to determine if they had an effect on mortality.

Results

The median follow‐up period was 72.9 months (range: 12.0–133.3) and 7.5% of the patients died. Among all patients, 54.7%, 16.2%, 45.6%, and 8.5% received 3 or more mammograms, chest CTs, bone scans, and PET‐CTs within 3 years after surgery, respectively. Among patients who developed recurrence after 3 or more years, a comparison of overall mortality and breast‐cancer specific mortality according to the frequency of imaging by modality (<3 vs. ≥3) showed that only mammography had significantly reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84, p < 0.0001; HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This study showed that only frequent mammography reduced mortality and frequent imaging follow‐up with other modalities did not when compared to less frequent imaging. This finding provides supportive evidence that clinicians need to adhere to the current guidelines for surveillance after breast cancer surgery.

Follow-up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals

Objective

Follow‐up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow‐up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow‐up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow‐up as proposed by HCPs.

Methods

Semi‐structured in‐depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow‐up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach.

Results

Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare.

Conclusions

Variation in follow‐up existed between hospitals. Shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up.

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544).

CONCLUSION

While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.

Intensity of metastasis screening and survival outcomes in patients with breast cancer

Previous randomized trials, performed decades ago, showed no survival benefit of intensive screening for distant metastasis in breast cancer. However, recent improvements in targeted therapies and diagnostic accuracy of imaging have again raised the question of the clinical benefit of screening for distant metastasis. Therefore, we investigated the association between the use of modern imaging and survival of patients with breast cancer who eventually developed distant metastasis. We retrospectively reviewed data of 398 patients who developed distant metastasis after their initial curative treatment between January 2000 and December 2015. Patients in the less-intensive surveillance group (LSG) had significantly longer relapse-free survival than did patients in the intensive surveillance group (ISG) (8.7 vs. 22.8 months; p = 0.002). While the ISG showed worse overall survival than the LSG did (50.2 vs. 59.9 months; p = 0.015), the difference was insignificant after adjusting for other prognostic factors. Among the 225 asymptomatic patients whose metastases were detected on imaging, the intensity of screening did not affect overall survival. A small subgroup of patients showed poor survival outcomes when they underwent intensive screening. Patients with HR-/HER2 + tumors and patients who developed lung metastasis in the LSG had better overall survival than those in the ISG did. Highly intensive screening for distant metastasis in disease-free patients with breast cancer was not associated with significant survival benefits, despite the recent improvements in therapeutic options and diagnostic techniques.

A Mathematical Model to Predict Diagnostic Periods for Secondary Distant Metastases in Patients with ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67 Subtypes of Breast Cancer

Previously, a consolidated mathematical model of primary tumor (PT) growth and secondary distant metastasis (sdMTS) growth in breast cancer (BC) (CoMPaS) was presented. The aim was to detect the diagnostic periods for visible sdMTS via CoMPaS in patients with different subtypes ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67 (Estrogen Receptor/Progesterone Receptor/Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2/Ki-67 marker) of breast cancer. CoMPaS is based on an exponential growth model and complementing formulas, and the model corresponds to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system and BC subtypes (ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67). The CoMPaS model reflects (1) the subtypes of BC, such as ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67, and (2) the growth processes of the PT and sdMTSs in BC patients without or with lymph node metastases (MTSs) in accordance with the eighth edition American Joint Committee on Cancer prognostic staging system for breast cancer. CoMPaS correctly describes the growth of the PT in the ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67 subtypes of BC patients and helps to calculate the different diagnostic periods, depending on the tumor volume doubling time of sdMTS, when sdMTSs might appear. CoMPaS and the corresponding software tool can help (1) to start the early treatment of small sdMTSs in BC patients with different tumor subtypes (ER/PR/HER2/Ki-67), and (2) to consider the patient almost healthy if sdMTSs do not appear during the different diagnostic periods.

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes.The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice.We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine.The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Inquiry and computer program Onko-Online: 25 years of clinical registry for breast cancer at the University Medical Centre Maribor

Background High-quality routine care data collected in the clinical registry play a significant role in improving the management of cancer patients. Clinical cancer registries record important data in the course of cancer diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and survival. Analyses of such comprehensive data pool make it possible to improve the quality of patients care and compare with other health care providers. Methods The first inquiry at the Department of Gynaecologic and Breast Oncology of the then General Hospital Maribor to follow breast cancer patients has been introduced in 1994. Based on our experience and new approaches in breast cancer treatment, the context of inquiry has been changed and extended to the present form, which served as a model for developing a relevant computer programme named Onko-Online in 2014. Results During the 25-year period, we collected data from about 3,600 breast cancer patients. The computer program Onko-Online allowed for quick and reliable collection, processing and analysis of 167 different data of breast cancer patients including general information, medical history, diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up. Conclusions The clinical registry for breast cancer Onko-Online provides data that help us to improve diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer patients, organize the daily practice and to compare the results of our treatment to the national and international standards. A limitation of the registry is the potentially incomplete or incorrect data input by different healthcare providers, involved in the treatment of breast cancer patients.