Predictors of delayed breast reconstruction in the Netherlands: a 5-year follow-up study in stage I-III breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) is a valid option for postmastectomy breast cancer patients who have a desire for breast reconstruction but are not considered suitable for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical practice and predictors of the use of DBR in the Netherlands. METHODS: Stage I-III breast cancer patients diagnosed from January to March 2012 and treated with mastectomy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Routinely collected patient, tumor, treatment and hospital characteristics were complemented with data about DBR up to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with postmastectomy DBR. Factors associated with time to DBR were identified through Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of all patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 1,415), 10.2% underwent DBR. DBR patients more often received autologous reconstruction compared to IBR patients (37.5% vs 6.2%, p < 0.001). Age below 50 years (age < 35 OR 15.55, age 35-49 OR 4.18) and neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 2.59 and OR 2.83, respectively) were significantly associated with DBR. Mean time to DBR was 2.4 years [range 1-6 years]. Time to DBR was significantly associated with age < 35 years (HR 2.22), and a high hospital volume (HR 1.87). DISCUSSION: The use of DBR after mastectomy could not be fully explained by age below 50 years, chemotherapy, and hospital volume. Treatment with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy increased time to DBR. More information about patient preferences is needed to understand the use and timing of reconstruction.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures may optimize shared decision-making for cancer risk management in BRCA mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, either after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) or during breast surveillance, to improve shared decision-making in their cancer risk management. METHODS: Unaffected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers at least one year after BPM followed by immediate breast reconstruction (BPM-IBR) or one year under surveillance were eligible. After informed consent, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and BREAST-Q were administered and compared between the different strategies. PROs were also compared to available normative data. RESULTS: Ninety-six participants were analyzed in this study and showed significant differences between strategies in age, age at genetic testing, and time since BPM or starting breast surveillance. All HADS scores were below 8 suggesting no signs of anxiety or depression in both groups. Higher mean 'Q-physical well-being' scores were reported by the surveillance group (81.78 [CI 76.99-86.57]) than the BPM group (76.96 [CI 73.16 - 80.75]; p = 0.011). Overall, for both questionnaires better scores were seen when compared to age-matched normative data. CONCLUSIONS: No signs of anxiety or depression were seen in the surveillance or BPM-IBR group. Slightly better mean BREAST-Q scores were seen for the surveillance group in comparison to BPM-IBR, except for 'Q-psychological well-being'. The difference in 'Q-physical well-being' was significantly worse for BPM-IBR. Approaches to obtain longitudinal PROs and reference values should be explored in the future, which could add value to shared decision-making in regards to breast cancer risk management in this specific patient population.

Implementation of Value Based Breast Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Adding value of care to patients is crucial for all stakeholders. The use of both provider and patient reported outcome data was implemented in a single academic breast cancer center. We describe the development of the outcomes set, data integration within electronical health records (EHR) and clinical use. METHODS: An Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) was constructed providing the full care cycle for breast cancer patients. Provider reported outcomes and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were defined, reflecting the entire cycle of care and long-term sustainability of quality of life. Multidisciplinary provider and patient perspectives were obtained via focus groups and surveys. Patient pathways were redesigned in order to identify suitable opportunities for data collection during the entire care cycle. RESULTS: A Standard Set for Breast Cancer Outcomes together with case-mix variables and timelines was agreed upon within the IPU. A secure electronic platform, directly linked to the EHR, was designed to measure PROs during the outpatient phase. First year evaluation showed a decrease of response rates over time, from 83.3% at baseline to 45.2% at 12 months after surgery. Patients reacted positively to the use of PROMs in daily clinical cancer care. CONCLUSION: Assessment of patient reported as well as provider reported outcomes was implemented within our standard of breast cancer care. For this, dedicated resources, change of culture and practice, and improved knowledge and awareness about Value-based healthcare (VBHC) were essential. Our proposed framework aims to serve as a blueprint for implementation of VBHC in daily care.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures May Add Value in Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: Considering the comparable prognosis in early-stage breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy, quality of life should be a focus in treatment decision(s). We retrospectively collected PROs and analyzed differences per type of surgery delivered. We aimed to obtain reference values helpful in shared decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: pTis-T3N0-3M0 patients operated between January 2005 and September 2016 were eligible if: (1) no chemotherapy was administered < 6 months prior to enrolment, and (2) identical surgeries were performed in case of bilateral surgery. After consent, EQ-5D-5L, EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, and BREAST-Q were administered. PROs were evaluated per baseline characteristics using multivariable linear regression models. Outcomes were compared for different surgeries as well as for primary (PBC) and second primary or recurrent (SBC) breast cancer patients using analyses of variance (ANOVAs). RESULTS: The response rate was 68%. PROs in 612 PBC patients were comparable to those in 152 SBC patients. Multivariable analyses showed increasing age to be associated with lower "physical functioning" [ß - 0.259, p < 0.001] and "sexual functioning" [ß - 0.427, p < 0.001], and increasing time since surgery with less "fatigue" [ß - 1.083, p < 0.001]. Mastectomy [ß - 13.596, p = 0.003] and implant reconstruction [ß - 13.040, p = 0.007] were associated with lower "satisfaction with breast" scores than BCT. Radiation therapy was associated with lower satisfaction scores than absence of radiotherapy. DISCUSSION: PRO scores were associated with age, time since surgery, type of surgery, and radiation therapy in breast cancer patients. The scores serve as a reference value for different types of surgery in the study population and enable prospective use of PROs in shared decision-making.

Three-dimensional ultrasonography of the breast; An adequate replacement for MRI in neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumour response evaluation? - RESPONDER trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of tumour response during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is important and may influence treatment decisions in invasive breast cancer patients. Breast MRI forms the gold standard but is more burdensome, time consuming and costly. In this study response measurement was done with 3-D ultrasound by Automated Breast Volume Scanner (ABVS) and compared to breast MRI. Moreover, patient satisfaction with both techniques was compared. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution, prospective observational pilot study evaluating tumour response by ABVS in addition to breast MRI (standard care) was performed in 25 invasive breast cancer patients receiving NAC. Tumour response was evaluated comparing longest tumour diameters as well as tumour volumes at predefined time points using Bland-Altman analysis. Volume measurements for breast MRI were obtained using a fully immersive virtual reality system (a Barco I-Space) and V-Scope software. Same software was used to obtain ABVS volume measurements using an in-house developed desktop VR system. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was evaluated by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were eligible for baseline measurement, 20 for a mid-NAC response evaluation, and five for a post-NAC response evaluation. MRI and ABVS showed absolute concordance in 73% of patients for the mid-NAC evaluation, with a 'good' correlation for the difference in longest diameter measurement (ICC 0.73, p < 0.01) as compared to baseline assessment. Concerning difference in volume measurement in the mid-NAC response evaluation showed a 'fair' correlation (ICC 0.52, p < 0.01) and in the post-NAC response evaluation an 'excellent' correlation (ICC 0.98, p < 0.01). 'Excellent' inter- and intra-observer agreement was found (ICC 0.88, p < 0.01) with comparable limits of agreement (LOA) for observer 1 and 2 in both diameter and volume measurement. Patient satisfaction was higher for ABVS compared to breast MRI, 93% versus 12% respectively. CONCLUSION: ABVS showed 'good' correlation with MRI tumour response evaluation in breast cancer patients during NAC with 'excellent' inter- and intra-observer agreement. ABVS has patients' preference over breast MRI and could be considered as alternative to breast MRI, in case results on an on-going prospective trial confirm these results (NTR6799).

Patient reported outcome measures in breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: In the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures (ICHOM) breast cancer outcome set Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) form an important but rather innovative part. Few data exist on scores per type of breast surgery and how to use scores in surgical practice. We evaluated PROM scores as well as satisfaction with and expectations of the use of PROMs in breast cancer patients using the national and local patient advocate society. METHODS: Through an online survey patients were asked to report age, type of breast cancer surgery (whether Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT), mastectomy, autologous or implant breast reconstruction) and time since surgery. PROMs (EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and BREAST-Q postoperative modules) were compared for the different surgeries. Additional comparison was made with literature normative and reference scores. Three questions evaluated satisfaction with PROMs and expectations. RESULTS: 496 patients completed all PROMs and 487 the satisfaction/expectation-questions. Significantly reduced physical functioning was reported following BCT as compared to other surgeries and literature reference values. Satisfaction scores were higher following autologous reconstruction and lower following implant reconstruction as compared to BCT. PRO scores were comparable to normative and references scores except for the 'physical functioning' (BREAST-Q) scores that reported lower in the present study. Ninety-four percent of the participants was (highly) satisfied with future PROM use. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical significant differences were found for PROMs following different types of breast surgery. The significance of these results should become clearer trough collection of future data. The great majority of participants considered PROMs as (highly) acceptable and reacted positively on their proposed future use.