Quality assurance of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery among patients in the BOOG 2013-08 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the BOOG 2013-08 trial (NCT02271828), cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients were randomized between breast conserving surgery with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) followed by whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). While awaiting primary endpoint results (axillary recurrence rate), this study aims to perform a quality assurance analysis on protocol adherence and (incidental) axillary radiation therapy (RT) dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled between 2015 and 2022. Data on prescribed RT and (in 25% of included patients) planning target volumes (PTV) parameters were recorded for axillary levels I-IV and compared between treatment arms. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine prognostic variables for incidental axillary RT dose. RESULTS: 1,439/1,461 included patients (98.5%) were treated according to protocol and 87 patients (5.9%) received regional RT (SLNB 10.9%, no-SLNB 1.5 %). In 326 patients included in the subgroup analysis, the mean incidental PTV dose at axilla level I was 59.5% of the prescribed breast RT dose. In 5 patients (1.5%) the mean PTV dose at level I was ≥95% of the prescribed breast dose. No statistically or clinically significant differences regarding incidental axillary RT dose were found between treatment arms. Tumour bed boost (yes/no) was associated with a higher incidental mean dose in level I (R2 = 0.035, F(6, 263) = 1.532, p 0.168). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that RT-protocol adherence was high, and that incidental axillary RT dose was low in the BOOG 2013-08 trial. Potential differences between treatmentarms regarding the primary endpoint can thus not be attributed to different axillary radiation doses.

Model-Based Selection for Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: Development of the National Indication Protocol for Proton Therapy and First Clinical Experiences.

AIMS: Proton therapy is a radiation technique that yields less dose in normal tissues than photon therapy. In the Netherlands, proton therapy is reimbursed if the reduced dose to normal tissues is predicted to translate into a prespecified reduction in toxicity, based on nationally approved validated models. The aim of this paper is to present the development of a national indication protocol for proton therapy (NIPP) for model-based selection of breast cancer patients and to report on first clinical experiences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national proton therapy working group for breast cancer (PWG-BC) screened the literature for prognostic models able to estimate the individual risk of specific radiation-induced side-effects. After critical appraisal and selection of suitable models, a NIPP for breast cancer was written and subjected to comments by all stakeholders. The approved NIPP was subsequently introduced to select breast cancer patients who would benefit most from proton therapy. RESULTS: The model of Darby et al. (N Engl J Med 2013; 368:987-82) was the only model fulfilling the criteria prespecified by the PWG-BC. The model estimates the relative risk of an acute coronary event (ACE) based on the mean heart dose. The absolute lifetime risk of ACE <80 years was calculated by applying this model to the Dutch absolute incidence of ACE for female and male patients, between 40 and 70 years at breast cancer radiotherapy, with/without cardiovascular risk factors. The NIPP was approved for reimbursement in January 2019. Based on a threshold value of a 2% absolute lower risk on ACE for proton therapy compared with photons, 268 breast cancer patients have been treated in the Netherlands with proton therapy between February 2019 and January 2021. CONCLUSION: The NIPP includes a model that allows the estimation of the absolute risk on ACE <80 years based on mean heart dose. In the first 2 years, 268 breast cancer patients have been treated with proton therapy in The Netherlands.

A patient decision aid for breast cancer patients deciding on their radiation treatment, no change in decisional conflict but better informed choices.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In selected breast cancer patients, radiation treatment (RT) lowers the recurrence risk, with minor or no improvement of survival. In these patients, the choice to undergo RT is considered a preference-sensitive decision. To facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) for this choice, a patient decision aid was made. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the PtDA on decisional conflict. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a multi-center pre- and post-intervention study (BRASA-trial). The first 214 patients made a choice without support of the PtDA; the subsequent 189 patients received a link to the PtDA. The primary endpoint was decisional conflict; secondary endpoints were perceived SDM and knowledge on treatment options. Patients filled out questionnaires immediately after, and three months after their decision. Data were analyzed with multi-level regression analysis. RESULTS: After correcting for the difference in age and educational level, the mean (±SD) decisional conflict for the intervention group (27.3 ± 11.4) was similar to the control group (26.8 ± 11.4; difference = 0.86, 95 %CI 1.67,3.36) three months after their decision. This also applied to perceived SDM. Patients exposed to the PtDA pursued additional treatment less often (45% vs 56%, odds ratio 0.59, 95 %CI 0.37,0.95) and scored significantly higher on the knowledge test (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.1 ± 2.7, corrected difference = 1.0, 95 %CI 0.50,1.49). There was no significant increase in consultation time. CONCLUSIONS: Handing out the PtDA was not associated with improved scores in decisional conflict or perceived SDM, but it was associated with a choice for less additional treatment and better knowledge about the treatment options.

Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy Planning After Immediate Implant-based Reconstruction Using the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice Consensus Guidelines for Target Volume Delineation.

AIMS: To evaluate how common radiation therapy techniques perform in the setting of the new European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice (ESTRO-ACROP) delineation recommendations for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven Danish radiation therapy centres and six international European centres participated in this project. Two breast cancer cases (one left-sided and one right-sided) with a retropectoral implant were chosen for radiation therapy planning using deep-inspiration breath-hold. Target volumes were delineated according to ESTRO-ACROP delineation recommendations. The centres were asked to plan the cases using any radiation therapy technique according to the Danish Breast Cancer Group plan objectives. RESULTS: In total, 35 treatment plans were collected. Half of the submitted plans, for both the left-sided and the right-sided case, used the field-in-field (FiF) technique (nine for each), a quarter used volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT; five for right-sided, four for left-sided) and the remaining quarter was a mix of inverse intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), helicoidal therapy and hybrid (combined open fields and VMAT) techniques. Mean clinical target volume doses were in the range 99-102% of the prescribed dose. The median FiF mean heart dose (MHD) for right-sided radiation therapy was 1 Gy (range 0.8-3.7) and 5.2 Gy for left-sided radiation therapy (range 2.2-6.5). For right-sided radiation therapy, the median VMAT MHD was 3.42 Gy, for IMRT was 2.3 Gy and for helicoidal therapy was 5.1 Gy. For left-sided radiation therapy, the median VMAT MHD was 6.3 Gy, for IMRT was 7.8 Gy and for helicoidal therapy was 7.3 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Different radiation therapy techniques could be used to plan radiation therapy in the setting of IBR. FiF provided good coverage with acceptable organ at risk doses. The best dose distribution results as a trade-off between the objectives of target volume coverage and high-dose organ at risk inclusion. The radiation therapy technique affects the interplay between these objectives.

Implementing a patient decision aid, a process evaluation of a large-scale pre- and post-implementation trial.

PURPOSE: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been reported to have a positive influence on patients making a health care decision in trials. Nevertheless, post-trial implementation is poor. The aim of this study is to explore patient, clinician, and organizational success factors for implementing a PtDA designed for breast cancer patients, facing a decision on their radiation treatment. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation within a multi-center pre- and post-implementation trial. The PtDA was incorporated as much as possible in the logistics of 13 participating centers. Tracking data were collected on PtDA use. Process characteristics were recorded by both clinicians and patients. A logistic regression method was applied to investigate which process characteristics were significantly related to the probability that patients logged in to the PtDA. RESULTS: 189 patients received the PtDA of whom140 (77%) used the PtDA. If patients received the link via the surgery department they were more likely to use the PtDA (OR 9.77 (1.28-74.51)), compared to patients that received the link via the radiation oncology department. If the report of the multidisciplinary team stated that radiation treatment "had to be discussed with the patient", patients were more likely to use the PtDA (OR 2.29 (1.12-4.71)). Educational level was not related to the probability of PtDA use. CONCLUSIONS: We accomplished a high level of PtDA use. Patients were more likely to use the PtDA if they received the link via the surgery department and if "to be discussed with the patient" was written in the multidisciplinary team report.

Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: It is known that the use of a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA), combined with advice for professionals on how and when to use it, can enhance the involvement of patients in the treatment decision. However, we need more knowledge with respect to the intention-behaviour gap. This study aims to analyse patients' experiences with the Shared Decision Making (SDM) process to find clues to close this gap. METHODS: This qualitative study was part of a pilot study aiming to implement SDM in early adopter breast cancer teams. Patients were given access to a personalised PtDA. Breast cancer teams were instructed on how and when to deliver the PtDA. We interviewed 20 patients about their experience with the PtDA and SDM in general. RESULTS: Most patients experienced SDM, though to a certain extent. Choice talk and option talk were commonly experienced, however the elicitation of preferences and decision talk was rare. The PtDA was used by the majority of patients (N = 13), all indicating that it was useful, especially to recall all the information given. Patients appreciated the contribution of breast cancer nurses in the SDM process. They considered them as true case managers, easy to approach and supportive. CONCLUSION: Although patients felt well-informed and satisfied about risk-communication, the elicitation of preferences appeared very limited to non-existent. We recommend that breast cancer teams divide tasks in the SDM process and reallocate the elicitation of preferences to the nurses in a well-defined clinical pathway.

Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patient decision aids for oncological treatment options, provide information on the effect on recurrence rates and/or survival benefit, and on side-effects and/or burden of different treatment options. However, often uncertainty exists around the probability estimates for recurrence/survival and side-effects which is too relevant to be ignored. Evidence is lacking on the best way to communicate these uncertainties. The aim of this study is to develop a method to incorporate uncertainties in a patient decision aid for breast cancer patients to support their decision on radiotherapy. METHODS: Firstly, qualitative interviews were held with patients and health care professionals. Secondly, in the development phase, thinking aloud sessions were organized with four patients and 12 health care professionals, individual and group-wise. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a pictograph illustrating the whole range of uncertainty for local recurrence risks, in combination with textual explanation that a more exact personalized risk would be given by their own physician. The pictograph consisted of 100 female icons in a 10 x 10 array. Icons with a stepwise gradient color indicated the uncertainty margin. The prevalence and severity of possible side-effects were explained using verbal labels. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel way of visualizing uncertainties in recurrence rates in a patient decision aid. The effect of this way of communicating risk uncertainty is currently being tested in the BRASA study (NCT03375801).

What do patients and health care professionals view as important attributes in radiotherapy decisions? Input for a breast cancer patient decision aid.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: There is increased attention for shared decision making (SDM) when deciding on radiotherapy for selected patients with Stage 0-2 breast cancer. This study aimed to explore patients' and health care professionals' experiences, decisional attributes and needs as input for the development of a patient decision aid to facilitate SDM. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen breast cancer patients, being confronted with a radiotherapy decision one month to eight years earlier. Another fifteen interviews were held with professionals specialized in breast cancer care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and independently coded by two researchers, who agreed upon relevant issues. RESULTS: Most patients made their decision by weighing the advantages of radiotherapy, i.e. comparing the decrease in recurrence risk with and without radiotherapy, and disadvantages, i.e. possible side effects. Patients and professionals agreed that recurrence risks should be communicated, but not on how to deal with uncertainty. There was wide variation in which, and how, side effects were explained by professionals. The most common side effects mentioned by both patients and professionals were skin toxicity, fatigue and breast deformity. CONCLUSION: Patients and professionals appeared to agree on what type of attributes should be communicated during SDM on radiotherapy, but how this should be done is up for discussion. To ensure the patient's voice these attributes and needs need to be incorporated in the risk communication and value elicitation part of the patient decision aid. The format in which the attributes are communicated should be critically evaluated.

Does lack of deeper understanding of shared decision making explains the suboptimal performance on crucial parts of it? An example from breast cancer care.

PURPOSE: Although most of the clinicians in breast cancer care seem to approve of shared decision making (SDM), actual implementation is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, issues and concerns of early-adopter professionals with regards to shared decision making. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was part of a pilot study aimed at implementing SDM in breast cancer teams. We interviewed 27 clinicians; 9 breast cancer surgeons, 11 nurse practitioners and 7 nurses. The teams were exposed to a multifaceted implementation programme, among others: a patient decision aid (PtDA), a procedure to disseminate the PtDA and advice on redesigning the clinical pathway. RESULTS: Participants considered SDM, including the delivery of the PtDA, to be a team effort, in which every professional should take responsibility. Most clinicians primarily focused on the first steps of SDM ignoring preference and decision talk. The remaining steps, like the uptake of the PtDA in the clinical pathway, were regarded as challenging, with surgeons, intentionally or unconsciously, delegating this responsibility to nurses. One barrier to successfully implementing SDM seems to lie in the fact that clinicians were unaware of their lack of competency regarding SDM. CONCLUSIONS: A deeper understanding is needed among clinicians of what SDM actually is and how a PtDA contributes to this process. Nurses play an important role in the delivery of the PtDA, but their role is not clearly defined. Teams should consider a clear realignment of tasks between surgeons and nurses, which implies redesign of the pathway.

Effects and moderators of psychosocial interventions on quality of life, and emotional and social function in patients with cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis of 22 RCTs.

OBJECTIVE: This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions (PSI) on quality of life (QoL), emotional function (EF), and social function (SF) in patients with cancer, and to study moderator effects of demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via literature searches in 4 databases. We pooled IPD from 22 (n = 4217) of 61 eligible randomized controlled trials. Linear mixed-effect model analyses were used to study intervention effects on the post-intervention values of QoL, EF, and SF (z-scores), adjusting for baseline values, age, and cancer type. We studied moderator effects by testing interactions with the intervention for demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics, and conducted subsequent stratified analyses for significant moderator variables. RESULTS: PSI significantly improved QoL (ß = 0.14,95%CI = 0.06;0.21), EF (ß = 0.13,95%CI = 0.05;0.20), and SF (ß = 0.10,95%CI = 0.03;0.18). Significant differences in effects of different types of PSI were found, with largest effects of psychotherapy. The effects of coping skills training were moderated by age, treatment type, and targeted interventions. Effects of psychotherapy on EF may be moderated by cancer type, but these analyses were based on 2 randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes of some cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: PSI significantly improved QoL, EF, and SF, with small overall effects. However, the effects differed by several demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention-related characteristics. Our study highlights the beneficial effects of coping skills training in patients treated with chemotherapy, the importance of targeted interventions, and the need of developing interventions tailored to the specific needs of elderly patients.

Are PROMs sufficient to record late outcome of breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy? A comparison between patient and clinician reported outcome through an outpatient clinic after 10years of follow up.

AIM: To investigate whether breast cancer patients' visits to an outpatient clinic for late outcome (OCLO) can be replaced by patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), by comparing late toxicity scored at the OCLO with PROMs. METHODS: All breast cancer patients treated in our institute with adjuvant radiotherapy 10-11years ago were invited to visit the OCLO, and for filling out PROM-questionnaires. Concordance rate between PROMs and OCLO-reported outcome and the percentage of patients with ≥2 degrees difference in toxicity level between patient and clinician was assessed. RESULTS: 686 of 1029 patients were still alive. 249 patients visited the OCLO, and 341 patients returned a questionnaire. At a group level, patients reported higher toxicity rates than clinicians. The mean concordance for individual patients was 58% between patient and clinician reported outcome. In 2.8%, the clinician reported ≥2 degrees higher toxicity than the patients did, whereas in 6.8% patients reported ≥2 degrees higher toxicity. CONCLUSION: PROMs do not underestimate late side-effects at a group level. In spite of the low concordance rate, PROMS can be used to identify patients who experience a heavy burden of side-effects, requiring specific attention. Therefore, patients can be spared a visit to the OCLO.

Preoperative breast radiation therapy: Indications and perspectives.

Preoperative breast radiation therapy (RT) is not a new concept, but older studies failed to change practice. More recently, there has been interest in revisiting preoperative RT using modern techniques. This current perspective discusses the indications, summarises the published literature and then highlights current clinical trials, with particular attention to combining with novel drugs and optimising associated translational research.

Clinically node negative breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy, sentinel lymph node procedure versus follow-up: a Dutch randomized controlled multicentre trial (BOOG 2013-08).

BACKGROUND: Studies showed that axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in presence of positive sentinel lymph node(s) in breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Since the outcome of the sentinel lymph node biopsy has no clinical consequence, the value of the procedure itself is being questioned. The aim of the BOOG 2013-08 trial is to investigate whether the sentinel lymph node biopsy can be safely omitted in clinically node negative breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving therapy. METHODS: The BOOG 2013-08 is a Dutch prospective non-inferiority randomized multicentre trial. Women with pathologically confirmed clinically node negative T1-2 invasive breast cancer undergoing breast conserving therapy will be randomized for sentinel lymph node biopsy versus no sentinel lymph node biopsy. Endpoints include regional recurrence after 5 (primary endpoint) and 10 years of follow-up, distant-disease free and overall survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness. Previous data indicate a 5-year regional recurrence free survival rate of 99% for the control arm and 96% for the study arm. In combination with a non-inferiority limit of 5% and probability of 0.8, this result in a sample size of 1.644 patients including a lost to follow-up rate of 10%. Primary and secondary endpoints will be reported after 5 and 10 years of follow-up. DISCUSSION: If the sentinel lymph node biopsy can be safely omitted in clinically node negative breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy, this study will cost-effectively lead to a decreased axillary morbidity rate and thereby improved quality of life with non-inferior regional control, distant-disease free survival and overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The BOOG 2013-08 study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since October 20, 2014, Identifier: NCT02271828. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02271828.

Contemporary risks of local and regional recurrence and contralateral breast cancer in patients treated for primary breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer treatment has evolved extensively over the past two decades with a shift towards less invasive local treatment and increased systemic treatment. The present study aimed to investigate the rates of local (LR) and regional (RR) recurrence and contralateral breast cancer (CBC), evaluating the influence of contributing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected all female patients operated for unilateral primary breast cancer (anyTN, M0) between 2003 and 2008 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The 5-year risks of developing LR, RR and CBC were estimated using Kaplan-Meier statistics. The influence of various patient, tumour and treatment characteristics was subsequently assessed in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 52,626 patients were identified. The rates of LR, RR and CBC were 2.7%, 1.5% and 2.9%, respectively. The rates of LR and RR decreased significantly over time in the period 2003-2008, from 3.2% to 2.4% for LR and 1.8 to 1.3% for RR, both becoming lower than the risk of CBC of 2.8%. Multivariable analysis showed that age, tumour size, lymph node involvement, tumour histologic type, grade and hormone receptor status were significant prognosticators for LR and RR, but not for CBC. A trend towards a beneficial effect of breast conserving surgery on LR and RR was seen, while systemic therapy proved to have a protective effect on all three end-points. CONCLUSIONS: In breast cancer patients treated between 2003 and 2008 locoregional recurrence rates decreased and have ended up lower than the risk of developing CBC.

The value of completion axillary treatment in sentinel node positive breast cancer patients undergoing a mastectomy: a Dutch randomized controlled multicentre trial (BOOG 2013-07).

BACKGROUND: Trials failed to demonstrate additional value of completion axillary lymph node dissection in case of limited sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. It has been suggested that the low regional recurrence rates in these trials might partially be ascribed to accidental irradiation of part of the axilla by whole breast radiation therapy, which precludes extrapolation of results to mastectomy patients. The aim of the randomized controlled BOOG 2013-07 trial is therefore to investigate whether completion axillary treatment can be safely omitted in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy. DESIGN: This study is designed as a non-inferiority randomized controlled multicentre trial. Women aged 18 years or older diagnosed with unilateral invasive clinically T1-2 N0 breast cancer who are treated with mastectomy, and who have a maximum of three axillary sentinel lymph nodes containing micro- and/or macrometastases, will be randomized for completion axillary treatment versus no completion axillary treatment. Completion axillary treatment can consist of completion axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiation therapy. Primary endpoint is regional recurrence rate at 5 years. Based on a 5-year regional recurrence free survival rate of 98 % among controls and 96 % for study subjects, the sample size amounts 439 per arm (including 10 % lost to follow-up), to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the rate for study and control subjects is inferior by at least 5 % with a probability of 0.8. Results will be reported after 5 and 10 years of follow-up. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that completion axillary treatment can be safely omitted in sentinel node positive breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy. If confirmed, this study will significantly decrease the number of breast cancer patients receiving extensive treatment of the axilla, thereby diminishing the risk of morbidity and improving quality of life, while maintaining excellent regional control and without affecting survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The BOOG 2013-07 study is registered in the register of ClinicalTrials.gov since April 10, 2014, Identifier: NCT02112682 .

The changing role of axillary treatment in breast cancer: Who will remain at risk for developing arm morbidity in the future?

Primary aim is to give an overview of changes in axillary staging and treatment of breast cancer patients. Secondly, we aim to identify patients with a high arm/shoulder morbidity risk, and describe a strategy to improve early detection and treatment. Recent and initiated studies on axillary staging and treatment were evaluated and clustered for clinically node negative and clinically node positive breast cancer patients, together with studies on pathology, detection and (surgical) prevention and treatment of lymphedema. For clinically node negative patients, the indication for axillary lymph node dissection in sentinel node positive patients is fading. On the contrary, clinically node positive patients are routinely subjected to an axillary lymph node dissection, in combination with other therapies associated with an increased lymphedema risk, such as mastectomy, adjuvant radiation- and (taxane-based) chemotherapy. Techniques for prevention, early detection and (surgical) treatment of lymphedema are being developed. Axillary staging and treatment in breast cancer patients with a clinically node negative status will become less invasive, thereby reducing the incidence of morbidity. Nevertheless, in patients with a clinically node positive status, aggressive treatment will still be required for oncologic control. For these patients, a surveillance program should be implemented in order to apply (curative) surgical treatment for lymphedema.

Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT.

BACKGROUND: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN 74071417) investigating the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led telephone follow-up instead of hospital visits, and of a short educational group programme (EGP) in the first year after breast cancer treatment. METHOD: This economic evaluation (n = 299) compared the one-year costs and the effects of four follow-up strategies: (1) hospital follow-up; (2) nurse-led telephone follow-up; (3) hospital follow-up plus EGP; and (4) nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP. Costs were measured using cost diaries and hospital registrations. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured using the EQ-5D. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Hospital follow-up plus EGP yielded most QALYs (0.776), but also incurred the highest mean annual costs (€4914). The ICER of this strategy versus the next best alternative, nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP (0.772 QALYs and €3971), amounted to €235.750/QALY. Hospital and telephone follow-up without EGP both incurred higher costs and less QALYs than telephone follow-up plus EGP and were judged inferior. Hospital follow-up plus EGP was not considered cost-effective, therefore, telephone follow-up plus EGP was the preferred strategy. The probability of telephone follow-up plus EGP being cost-effective ranged from 49% to 62% for different QALY threshold values. Secondary and sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led telephone follow-up plus EGP seems an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to hospital follow-up for breast cancer patients during their first year after treatment.

Nurse-led telephone follow-up and an educational group programme after breast cancer treatment: results of a 2 × 2 randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether frequent hospital follow-up in the first year after breast cancer treatment might partly be replaced by nurse-led telephone follow-up without deteriorating health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and whether a short educational group programme (EGP) would enhance HRQoL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 2×2 factorial design was performed among 320 breast cancer patients who were treated with curative intent. Participants were randomised to follow-up care as usual (3-monthly outpatient clinic visits), nurse-led telephone follow-up, or the former strategies combined with an educational group programme. The primary outcome for both interventions was HRQoL, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes were role and emotional functioning and feelings of control and anxiety. RESULTS: Data of 299 patients were available for evaluation. There was no significant difference in HRQoL between nurse-led telephone and hospital follow-up at 12 months after treatment (p = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference: -1.93-4.64) and neither between follow-up with or without EGP (p = 0.86; 95% CI for difference: -3.59-3.00). Furthermore, no differences between the intervention groups and their corresponding control groups were found in role and emotional functioning, and feelings of control and anxiety (all p-values > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Replacement of most hospital follow-up visits in the first year after breast cancer treatment by nurse-led telephone follow-up does not impede patient outcomes. Hence, nurse-led telephone follow-up seems an appropriate way to reduce clinic visits and represents an accepted alternative strategy. An EGP does not unequivocally affect positive HRQoL outcomes.

Follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer: why do we still adhere to frequent outpatient clinic visits?

Follow-up after curative treatment for breast cancer consists of frequent outpatient clinic visits, scheduled at regular intervals. Its aim is primarily to detect local disease recurrence, or a second primary breast cancer, but also to provide information and psychosocial support. The cost-effectiveness of these frequent visits is being questioned however, leading to a search for less intensive follow-up strategies, such as follow-up by the general practitioner, patient-initiated or nurse-led follow-up or contact by telephone. These strategies are generally considered to be safe, but they are not yet widely accepted in clinical practice. Since brief interventions based on self-education and information have been shown to be able to improve quality of life, we hypothesise that these interventions may lead to a better acceptance of reduced follow-up by both patients and professionals.