De-escalation of axillary treatment in the event of a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy: nationwide registry study (BOOG 2013-07).

BACKGROUND: Trials have demonstrated the safety of omitting completion axillary lymph node dissection in patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer operated with breast-conserving surgery who have limited metastatic burden in the sentinel lymph node. The aim of this registry study was to provide insight into the oncological safety of omitting completion axillary treatment in patients operated with mastectomy who have limited-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis. METHODS: Women diagnosed in 2013-2014 with unilateral cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with one to three sentinel lymph node metastases (pN1mi-pN1a), were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and classified by axillary treatment: no completion axillary treatment, completion axillary lymph node dissection, regional radiotherapy, or completion axillary lymph node dissection followed by regional radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year regional recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free interval and overall survival, among others. RESULTS: In total, 1090 patients were included (no completion axillary treatment, 219 (20.1%); completion axillary lymph node dissection, 437 (40.1%); regional radiotherapy, 327 (30.0%); completion axillary lymph node dissection and regional radiotherapy, 107 (9.8%)). Patients in the group without completion axillary treatment had more favourable tumour characteristics and were older. The overall 5-year regional recurrence rate was 1.3%, and did not differ significantly between the groups. The recurrence-free interval was also comparable among groups. The group of patients who did not undergo completion axillary treatment had statistically significantly worse 5-year overall survival, owing to a higher percentage of non-cancer deaths. CONCLUSION: In this registry study of patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer treated with mastectomy, with low-volume sentinel lymph node metastasis, the 5-year regional recurrence rate was low and comparable between patients with and without completion axillary treatment.

Method of primary breast cancer detection and the disease-free interval, adjusting for lead time.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of screen-detected breast cancer compared with clinically detected breast cancer on the disease-free interval (ie, free from locoregional recurrences, distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer). Moreover, it is thought that most studies overestimate the beneficial effect of screening, as they do not adjust for lead time. We investigated the association between method of breast cancer detection and disease-free interval, taking lead time into account. METHODS: Women aged 50-76 years, diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Women diagnosed in 2005 were divided into screen-detected and clinically detected cancer and had a follow-up of 10 years (2005 cohort). Women diagnosed in 2006-2008 were divided into screen-detected, interval, and nonscreen-related cancer and had a follow-up of 5 years (2006-2008 cohort). A previously published method was used to adjust for lead time. Analyses were repeated correcting for confounding variables instead of lead time. RESULTS: The 2005 cohort included 6215 women. Women with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with clinically detected cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.87). The 2006-2008 cohort included 15 176 women. Women with screen-detected or interval cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with nonscreen-related cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.88; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99, respectively). Correcting for confounders instead of lead time did not change associations. CONCLUSION: Women with screen-detected cancer had an improved disease-free interval compared with women with a nonscreen-related or clinically detected cancer, after correction for lead time.

Prognostic effect of nodal status before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a Dutch population-based study.

PURPOSE: In breast cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) can downstage the nodal status, and can even result in a pathological complete response, which is associated with improved prognosis. This study aimed to determine the prognostic effect of nodal status before and after NAC. METHODS: Women with breast cancer treated with NAC were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry if diagnosed between 2005 and 2019, and classified based on nodal status before NAC: node-negative (cN0), or node-positive based on fine needle aspiration cytology or core needle biopsy (cN+). Subgroups were based on nodal status after NAC: absence (ypN0) or presence (ypN+) of nodal disease. Five-year overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, also per breast cancer molecular subtype. To adjust for potential confounders, multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 6,580 patients were included in the cN0 group, and 11,878 in the cN+ group. The 5-year OS of the cN0ypN0-subgroup was statistically significant better than that of the cN+ypN0-subgroup (94.4% versus 90.1%, p < 0.0001). In cN0 as well as cN+ disease, ypN+ had a statistically significant worse 5-year OS compared to ypN0. For hormone receptor (HR)+ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-, HR+ HER2+, HR-HER2+, and triple negative disease, respectively, 5-year OS in the cN0ypN+-subgroup was 89.7%, 90.4%, 73.7%, and 53.6%, and in the cN+ypN+-subgroup 84.7%, 83.2%, 61.4%, and 48.8%. In multivariable analyses, cN+ and ypN+ disease were both associated with worse OS. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both cN-status and ypN-status, and molecular subtype should be considered to further improve prognostication.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer incidence and tumor stage in the Netherlands and Norway: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Comparing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of newly diagnosed breast tumors and their tumor stage between the Netherlands and Norway will help us understand the effect of differences in governmental and social reactions towards the pandemic. METHODS: Women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017-2021 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. The crude breast cancer incidence rate (tumors per 100,000 women) during the first (March-September 2020), second (October 2020-April 2021), and Delta COVID-19 wave (May-December 2021) was compared with the incidence rate in the corresponding periods in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Incidence rates were stratified by age group, method of detection, and clinical tumor stage. RESULTS: During the first wave breast cancer incidence declined to a larger extent in the Netherlands than in Norway (27.7% vs. 17.2% decrease, respectively). In both countries, incidence decreased in women eligible for screening. In the Netherlands, incidence also decreased in women not eligible for screening. During the second wave an increase in the incidence of stage IV tumors in women aged 50-69 years was seen in the Netherlands. During the Delta wave an increase in overall incidence and incidence of stage I tumors was seen in Norway. CONCLUSION: Alterations in breast cancer incidence and tumor stage seem related to a combined effect of the suspension of the screening program, health care avoidance due to the severity of the pandemic, and other unknown factors.

Prolonged screening interval due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with tumor characteristics and treatment; a register-based study from BreastScreen Norway.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic Norway had to suspend its national breast cancer screening program. We aimed to investigate the effect of the pandemic-induced suspension on the screening interval, and its subsequent association with the tumor characteristics and treatment of screen-detected (SDC) and interval breast cancer (IC). METHODS: Information about women aged 50-69, participating in BreastScreen Norway, and diagnosed with a SDC (N = 3799) or IC (N = 1806) between 2018 and 2021 was extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between COVID-19 induced prolonged screening intervals and tumor characteristics and treatment. RESULTS: Women with a SDC and their last screening exam before the pandemic had a median screening interval of 24.0 months (interquartile range: 23.8-24.5), compared to 27.0 months (interquartile range: 25.8-28.5) for those with their last screening during the pandemic. The tumor characteristics and treatment of women with a SDC, last screening during the pandemic, and a screening interval of 29-31 months, did not differ from those of women with a SDC, last screening before the pandemic, and a screening interval of 23-25 months. ICs detected 24-31 months after screening, were more likely to be histological grade 3 compared to ICs detected 0-23 months after screening (odds ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.84). CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic-induced prolonged screening intervals were not associated with the tumor characteristics and treatment of SDCs, but did increase the risk of a histopathological grade 3 IC. This study provides insights into the possible effects of extending the screening interval.

Attendance characteristics of the breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes in a highly urbanised region of the Netherlands: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Throughout Europe, many countries offer population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). In the Netherlands, two implemented CSPs are targeting people of 50 years and older, aiming at breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). In order for a CSP to be (cost-)effective, high participation rates and outreach to the populations at risk are essential. People living in highly urbanised areas and big cities are known to participate less in CSPs. The aim of this study was to gain further insight into the participation patterns of a screening-eligible population of 50 years and over, living in a highly urbanised region, over a longer time period. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: Participation data of the regional screening organisation, linked to the cancer incidence data derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, concerning the city of The Hague, between 2005 and 2019. Attendance groups were defined as attenders (attending >50% of the invitations) and non-attenders (attending ≤50% of the invitations), and were mutually compared. RESULTS: The databases contained 106 377 unique individuals on the BC screening programme (SP) and 73 669 on the CRC-SP. Non-attendance at both CSPs was associated with living in a lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighbourhood and as a counter effect, also associated with a more unfavourable, relatively late-stage, tumour diagnosis. When combining the results of the two CSPs, our results imply high screening adherence over time. Women who did not participate in both CSPs were older, and more often lived in neighbourhoods with a lower SES score. CONCLUSIONS: Since low screening uptake is one of the factors that contribute to increasing inequalities in cancer survival, future outreach strategies should be focused on engaging specific non-attending subgroups.

Long-term effects of the interruption of the Dutch breast cancer screening program due to COVID-19: A modelling study.

Due to COVID-19, the Dutch breast cancer screening program was interrupted for three months with uncertain long-term effects. The aim of this study was to estimate the long-term impact of this interruption on delay in detection, tumour size of screen-detected breast cancers, and interval cancer rate. After validation, the micro-simulation model SiMRiSc was used to calculate the effects of interruption of the breast cancer screening program for three months and for hypothetical interruptions of six and twelve months. A scenario without interruption was used as reference. Outcomes considered were tumour size of screen-detected breast cancers and interval cancer rate. Women of 55-59 and 60-64 years old at time of interruption were considered. Uncertainties were estimated using a sensitivity analysis. The three-month interruption had no clinically relevant long-term effect on the tumour size of screen-detected breast cancers. A 19% increase in interval cancer rate was found between last screening before and first screening after interruption compared to no interruption. Hypothetical interruptions of six and twelve months resulted in larger increases in interval cancer rate of 38% and 78% between last screening before and first screening after interruption, respectively, and an increase in middle-sized tumours in first screening after interruption of 26% and 47%, respectively. In conclusion, the interruption of the Dutch screening program is not expected to result in a long-term delay in detection or clinically relevant change in tumour size of screen-detected cancers, but only affects the interval cancer rate between last screening before and first screening after interruption.

Routine and interval detection of locoregional breast cancer recurrences and risk of subsequent distant metastasis.

PURPOSE: Follow-up for breast cancer survivors consists of after care and surveillance. The benefits of routine surveillance visits remain debatable. In this study we compared the severity of locoregional recurrences (LRRs) and the subsequent risk of a distant metastasis (DM) between LRRs detected at routine and interval visits. METHODS: Women diagnosed with early breast cancer between 2003 and 2008 in one of the 15 participating hospitals, and who developed a LRR as first event after primary treatment, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (Cohort A). Chi-squared tests were used to compare the severity of routine- and interval-detected local recurrences (LRs) and regional recurrences (RRs), using tumor size, tumor grade, and number of positive lymph nodes. Data on the development of a subsequent DM after a LRR were available for a subset of patients (Cohort B). Cohort B was used to estimate the association between way of LRR-detection and risk of a DM. RESULTS: Cohort A consisted of 109 routine- and 113 interval-LRR patients. The severity of routine-detected LRs or RRs and interval-detected LRs or RRs did not significantly differ. Cohort B consisted of 66 routine- and 61 interval-LRR patients. Sixteen routine- (24%) and 17 (28%) interval-LRR patients developed a DM. After adjustment, way of LRR-detection was not significantly associated with the risk of a DM (hazard ratio: 1.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-3.06). CONCLUSION: The current study showed that routine visits did not lead to less severe LRRs and did not decrease the risk of a subsequent DM.

Changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Dutch population-based study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare (1) treatments and time intervals between treatments of breast cancer patients diagnosed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the number of treatments started during and before the pandemic. METHODS: Women were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. For aim one, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to compare the treatment of women diagnosed within four periods of 2020: pre-COVID (weeks 1-8), transition (weeks 9-12), lockdown (weeks 13-17), and care restart (weeks 18-26), with data from 2018/2019 as reference. Wilcoxon rank-sums test was used to compare treatment intervals, using a two-sided p-value < 0.05. For aim two, number of treatments started per week in 2020 was compared with 2018/2019. RESULTS: We selected 34,097 women for aim one. Compared to 2018/2019, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was less likely for stage I (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11-0.53), stage II (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.47-0.86), and hormone receptor+/HER2- tumors (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41-0.75) diagnosed during transition. Time between diagnosis and first treatment decreased for patients diagnosed during lockdown with a stage I (p < 0.01), II (p < 0.01) or III tumor (p = 0.01). We selected 30,002 women for aim two. The number of neo-adjuvant endocrine therapies and surgeries starting in week 14, 2020, increased by 339% and 18%, respectively. The number of adjuvant chemotherapies decreased by 42% in week 15 and increased by 44% in week 22. CONCLUSION: The pandemic and subsequently altered treatment recommendations affected multiple aspects of the breast cancer treatment strategy and the number of treatments started per week.

Breast cancer mortality of older patients with and without recurrence analysed by novel multi-state models.

INTRODUCTION: In older patients with breast cancer, the risk of dying from other causes than breast cancer strongly increases after the age of 70. The aim of this study was to assess contributions of breast cancer mortality versus other-cause mortality after locoregional or distant recurrence in a population-based cohort of older patients analysed by multi-state models. METHODS: Surgically treated patients ≥70 years diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in 2003-2009 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A novel multi-state model with locoregional and distant recurrence that incorporates relative survival was fitted. Other-cause and breast cancer mortality were indicated as population and excess mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 18,419 patients were included. Ten-year cumulative incidences of locoregional and distant recurrence were 2.8% (95%CI 2.6-3.1%) and 12.5% (95%CI 11.9-13.1%). Other-cause mortality increased from 23.9% (95%CI 23.7-24.2%) in patients 70-74 years to 73.8% (95%CI 72.2-75.4%) in those ≥80 years. Ten-year probabilities of locoregional or distant recurrence with subsequent breast cancer death were 0.4-1.3% and 10.2-14.6%, respectively. For patients with a distant recurrence in the first two years after diagnosis, breast cancer death probabilities were 95.3% (95%CI 94.2-96.4%), 93.1% (95%CI 91.6-94.6%), and 88.6% (95%CI 86.5-90.8%) in patients 70-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years. CONCLUSION: In older patients without recurrence, prognosis is driven by other-cause mortality. Although locoregional recurrence is a predictor for worse outcome, given its low incidence it contributes little to breast cancer mortality after diagnosis. For patients who develop a distant recurrence, breast cancer remains the dominant cause of death, even at old age.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment with or without pertuzumab in patients with stage II and III HER2-positive breast cancer: a nationwide cohort analysis of pathologic response and 5-year survival.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in early stage HER2-positive breast cancer improved after pertuzumab was added to neoadjuvant treatment. However, survival benefit is less-well established and seems mostly limited to node-positive patients. We used national cancer registry data to compare outcomes of patients treated with and without pertuzumab. METHODS: We identified stage II-III HER2-positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant trastuzumab-based chemotherapy between November 2013 until January 2016 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. During that period pertuzumab was only available in the 37 hospitals that participated in the TRAIN-2 study. Missing grade and pCR-status were obtained from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and cause of death from Statistics Netherlands. We used multiple imputation to impute missing data, multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between pertuzumab and pCR (ypT0/is, ypN0) and multivariable Cox regression models for overall survival and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). RESULTS: We identified 1124 patients of whom 453 received pertuzumab. Baseline characteristics were comparable, although tumor grade was missing more often in patients treated without pertuzumab (12% vs. 2%). Pertuzumab improved pCR rates (41% vs 65%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.91; 95% CI:2.20-3.94). After a median follow-up of 6.0 years, 5-year BCSS rates were 95% and 98% respectively (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.58; 95% CI:0.36-0.95). Younger patients derived more benefit from pertuzumab, but no other significant interactions were found. CONCLUSION: These results support earlier data of a small survival benefit with the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy which is most meaningful in younger patients.

De-escalation of radiotherapy after primary chemotherapy in cT1-2N1 breast cancer (RAPCHEM; BOOG 2010-03): 5-year follow-up results of a Dutch, prospective, registry study.

BACKGROUND: Primary chemotherapy in breast cancer poses a dilemma with regard to adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy, as guidelines for locoregional radiotherapy were originally based on pathology results of primary surgery. We aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of de-escalated locoregional radiotherapy in patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to a predefined, consensus-based study guideline. METHODS: In this prospective registry study (RAPCHEM, BOOG 2010-03), patients referred to one of 17 participating radiation oncology centres in the Netherlands between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 1, 2015, with cT1-2N1 breast cancer (one to three suspicious nodes on imaging before primary chemotherapy, of which at least one had been pathologically confirmed), and who were treated with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla were included in the study. The study guideline comprised three risk groups for locoregional recurrence, with corresponding locoregional radiotherapy recommendations: no chest wall radiotherapy and no regional radiotherapy in the low-risk group, only local radiotherapy in the intermediate-risk group, and locoregional radiotherapy in the high-risk group. Radiotherapy consisted of a biologically equivalent dose of 25 fractions of 2 Gy, with or without a boost. During the study period, the generally applied radiotherapy technique in the Netherlands was forward-planned or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy. 5-year follow-up was assessed, taking into account adherence to the study guideline, with locoregional recurrence rate as primary endpoint. We hypothesised that 5-year locoregional recurrence rate would be less than 4% (upper-limit 95% CI 7·8%). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01279304, and is completed. FINDINGS: 838 patients were eligible for 5-year follow-up analyses: 291 in the low-risk group, 370 in the intermediate-risk group, and 177 in the high-risk group. The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2·2% (95% CI 1·4-3·4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2·1% (0·9-4·3) in the low-risk group, 2·2% (1·0-4·1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2·3% (0·8-5·5) in the high-risk group. If the study guideline was followed, the locoregional recurrence rate was 2·3% (0·8-5·3) for the low-risk group, 1·0% (0·2-3·4) for the intermediate-risk group, and 1·4% (0·3-4·5) for the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: In this study, the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was less than 4%, which supports our hypothesis that it is oncologically safe to de-escalate locoregional radiotherapy based on locoregional recurrence risk, in selected patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to this predefined, consensus-based study guideline. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society. TRANSLATION: For the Dutch translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Diagnostics in Patients Suspect for Breast Cancer in The Netherlands.

The goal of this study was to describe the variation in hospital-based diagnostic care activities for patients with symptomatology suspect for breast cancer in The Netherlands. Two cohorts were included: the 'benign' cohort (30,334 women suspected of, but without breast cancer) and the 'malignant' cohort (2236 breast cancer patients). Hospital-based financial data was combined with tumor data (malignant cohort) from The Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patterns within diagnostic pathways were analyzed. Factors influencing the number of visits and number of diagnostic care activities until diagnosis were identified in the malignant cohort with multivariable Cox and Poisson regression models. Compared to patients with benign diagnosis, patients with malignant disease received their diagnosis less frequently in one day, after an equal average number of hospital visits and higher average number of diagnostic activities. Factors increasing the number of diagnostic care activities were the following: lower age and higher cM-and cN-stages. Factors increasing the number of days until (malignant) diagnosis were as follows: higher BIRADS-score, screen-detected and higher cN-and cT-stages. Hospital of diagnosis influenced both number of activities and days to diagnosis. The diagnostic care pathway of patients with malignant disease required more time and diagnostic activities than benign disease and depends on hospital, tumor and patient characteristics.

Improved risk estimation of locoregional recurrence, secondary contralateral tumors and distant metastases in early breast cancer: the INFLUENCE 2.0 model.

PURPOSE: To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches. METHODS: Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples. RESULTS: Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74-0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65-0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77-0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created. CONCLUSIONS: INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancer patients.

Long-term risk of subsequent ipsilateral lesions after surgery with or without radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduces ipsilateral breast event rates in clinical trials. This study assessed the impact of DCIS treatment on a 20-year risk of ipsilateral DCIS (iDCIS) and ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) in a population-based cohort. METHODS: The cohort comprised all women diagnosed with DCIS in the Netherlands during 1989-2004 with follow-up until 2017. Cumulative incidence of iDCIS and iIBC following BCS and BCS + RT were assessed. Associations of DCIS treatment with iDCIS and iIBC risk were estimated in multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: The 20-year cumulative incidence of any ipsilateral breast event was 30.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 28.9-32.6) after BCS compared to 18.2% (95% CI 16.3-20.3) following BCS + RT. Women treated with BCS compared to BCS + RT had higher risk of developing iDCIS and iIBC within 5 years after DCIS diagnosis (for iDCIS: hazard ratio (HR)age < 50 3.2 (95% CI 1.6-6.6); HRage ≥ 50 3.6 (95% CI 2.6-4.8) and for iIBC: HRage<50 2.1 (95% CI 1.4-3.2); HRage ≥ 50 4.3 (95% CI 3.0-6.0)). After 10 years, the risk of iDCIS and iIBC no longer differed for BCS versus BCS + RT (for iDCIS: HRage < 50 0.7 (95% CI 0.3-1.5); HRage ≥ 50 0.7 (95% CI 0.4-1.3) and for iIBC: HRage < 50 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-0.9); HRage ≥ 50 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.6)). CONCLUSION: RT is associated with lower iDCIS and iIBC risk up to 10 years after BCS, but this effect wanes thereafter.

Impact of the suspension and restart of the Dutch breast cancer screening program on breast cancer incidence and stage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national breast screening program to a halt in week 12, 2020. In week 26, the breast program was resumed at 40% capacity, which increased to 60% in week 34. We examined the impact of the suspension and restart of the screening program on the incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancer. We selected women aged 50-74, diagnosed during weeks 2-35 of 2018 (n = 7250), 2019 (n = 7302), or 2020 (n = 5306), from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Weeks 2-35 were divided in seven periods, based on events occurring at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence of screen-detected and non-screen-detected tumors was calculated overall and by age group, cT-stage, and cTNM-stage for each period in 2020, and compared to the incidence in the same period of 2018/2019 (averaged). The incidence of screen-detected tumors decreased during weeks 12-13, reached almost zero during weeks 14-25, and increased during weeks 26-35. Incidence of non-screen-detected tumors decreased to a lesser extent during weeks 12-16. The decrease in incidence was seen in all age groups and mainly occurred for cTis, cT1, DCIS, and stage I tumors. Due to the suspension of the breast cancer screening program, and the restart at reduced capacity, the incidence of screen-detected breast tumors decreased by 67% during weeks 9-35 2020, which equates to about 2000 potentially delayed breast cancer diagnoses. Up to August 2020 there was no indication of a shift towards higher stage breast cancers after restart of the screening.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2-17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. RESULTS: Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR]wks2-8: 2.04, ORwks9-11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (ORwks12-13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (ORwks14-17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (ORwks9-11: 0.59, ORwks12-13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (ORwks14-17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (ORwks2-8: 1.23, ORwks9-11: 1.92, ORwks12-13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2-8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. CONCLUSION: The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes.

Prediction of Other-Cause Mortality in Older Patients with Breast Cancer Using Comorbidity.

Background: Individualized treatment in older patients with breast cancer can be improved by including comorbidity and other-cause mortality in prediction tools, as the other-cause mortality risk strongly increases with age. However, no optimal comorbidity score is established for this purpose. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Charlson comorbidity index for other-cause mortality with the use of a simple comorbidity count and to assess the impact of frequently occurring comorbidities. Methods: Surgically treated patients with stages I-III breast cancer aged ≥70 years diagnosed between 2003 and 2009 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Competing risk analysis was performed to associate 5-year other-cause mortality with the Charlson index, comorbidity count, and specific comorbidities. Discrimination and calibration were assessed. Results: Overall, 7511 patients were included. Twenty-nine percent had no comorbidities, and 59% had a Charlson score of 0. After five years, in 1974, patients had died (26%), of which 1450 patients without a distant recurrence (19%). Besides comorbidities included in the Charlson index, the psychiatric disease was strongly associated with other-cause mortality (sHR 2.44 (95%-CI 1.70-3.50)). The c-statistics of the Charlson index and comorbidity count were similar (0.65 (95%-CI 0.64-0.65) and 0.64 (95%-CI 0.64-0.65)). Conclusions: The predictive value of the Charlson index for 5-year other-cause mortality was similar to using comorbidity count. As it is easier to use in clinical practice, our findings indicate that comorbidity count can aid in improving individualizing treatment in older patients with breast cancer. Future studies should elicit whether geriatric parameters could improve prediction.

Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

We aimed to assess contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with invasive breast cancer (BC). Women diagnosed with DCIS (N = 28,003) or stage I-III BC (N = 275,836) between 1989 and 2017 were identified from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cumulative incidences were estimated, accounting for competing risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) for metachronous invasive CBC. To evaluate effects of adjuvant systemic therapy and screening, separate analyses were performed for stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy and by mode of first BC detection. Multivariable models including clinico-pathological and treatment data were created to assess CBC risk prediction performance in DCIS patients. The 10-year cumulative incidence of invasive CBC was 4.8% for DCIS patients (CBC = 1334). Invasive CBC risk was higher in DCIS patients compared with invasive BC overall (HR = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.17), and lower compared with stage I BC without adjuvant systemic therapy (HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.82-0.92). In patients diagnosed ≥2011, the HR for invasive CBC was 1.38 (95% CI = 1.35-1.68) after screen-detected DCIS compared with screen-detected invasive BC, and was 2.14 (95% CI = 1.46-3.13) when not screen-detected. The C-index was 0.52 (95% CI = 0.50-0.54) for invasive CBC prediction in DCIS patients. In conclusion, CBC risks are low overall. DCIS patients had a slightly higher risk of invasive CBC compared with invasive BC, likely explained by the risk-reducing effect of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy among BC patients. For support of clinical decision making more information is needed to differentiate CBC risks among DCIS patients.

The impact of the temporary suspension of national cancer screening programmes due to the COVID-19 epidemic on the diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands.

Oncological care was largely derailed due to the reprioritisation of health care services to handle the initial surge of COVID-19 patients adequately. Cancer screening programmes were no exception in this reprioritisation. They were temporarily halted in the Netherlands (1) to alleviate the pressure on health care services overwhelmed by the upsurge of COVID-19 patients, (2) to reallocate staff and personal protective equipment to support critical COVID-19 care, and (3) to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Utilising data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry on provisional cancer diagnoses between 6 January 2020 and 4 October 2020, we assessed the impact of the temporary halt of national population screening programmes on the diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands. A dynamic harmonic regression model with ARIMA error components was applied to assess the observed versus expected number of cancer diagnoses per calendar week. Fewer diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancer were objectified amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands. This effect was most pronounced among the age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes, especially in breast cancer (age group 50-74 years). Encouragingly enough, the observed number of diagnoses ultimately reached and virtually remained at the level of the expected values. This finding, which emerged earlier in age groups not invited for cancer screening programmes, comes on account of the decreased demand for critical COVID-19 care since early April 2020, which, in turn, paved the way forward to resume screening programmes and a broad range of non-critical health care services, albeit with limited operating and workforce capacity. Collectively, transient changes in health-seeking behaviour, referral practices, and cancer screening programmes amid the early stages of the initial COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands conjointly acted as an accelerant for fewer breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses in age groups eligible for cancer screening programmes. Forthcoming research is warranted to assess whether the decreased diagnostic scrutiny of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in stage migration and altered clinical management, as well as poorer outcomes.