Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of possible late effects of cancer treatment (physical complaints, fatigue, and cognitive complaints) and of two job resources (autonomy and supportive leadership style) on future burnout complaints, among employees living 2–10 years beyond breast cancer diagnosis.Methods: Data at T1 (baseline questionnaire) and at T2 (9 months later) were collected in 2018 and 2019 (N = 287). These data were part of a longitudinal study among Dutch speaking workers with a cancer diagnosis 2–10 years ago. All complaints and job resources were self-reported. Longitudinal multivariate regression analyses were executed, controlling for years since diagnosis, living with cancer (recurrence or metastasis), and other chronic or severe diseases. Mediation by baseline burnout complaints was considered.Results: A higher level of fatigue and cognitive complaints at baseline (T1) resulted in higher future burnout complaints (at T2), with partial mediation by baseline burnout complaints. No effect of physical complaints at T1 was observed. Higher levels of autonomy or a supportive leadership style resulted in lower burnout complaints, with full mediation by baseline burnout complaints. Buffering was observed by autonomy in the relationship of cognitive complaints with future burnout complaints. No moderation was observed by supportive leadership.Conclusion: The level of burnout complaints among employees 2–10 years beyond breast cancer diagnosis may be an effect of fatigue or cognitive complaints, and awareness of this effect is necessary. Interventions to stimulate supportive leadership and autonomy are advisable, the latter especially in the case of cognitive complaints.
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 over‑all 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.
Objective Animal data suggest that exercise during chemotherapy is cardioprotective, but clinical evidence to support this is limited. This study evaluated the effect of exercise during chemotherapy for breast cancer on long-term cardiovascular toxicity. Methods This is a follow-up study of two previously performed randomised trials in patients with breast cancer allocated to exercise during chemotherapy or non-exercise controls. Cardiac imaging parameters, including T1 mapping (native T1, extracellular volume fraction (ECV)), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS), cardiorespiratory fitness, and physical activity levels, were acquired 8.5 years post-treatment. Results In total, 185 breast cancer survivors were included (mean age 58.9±7.8 years), of whom 99% and 18% were treated with anthracyclines and trastuzumab, respectively. ECV and Native T1 were 25.3%±2.5% and 1026±51 ms in the control group, and 24.6%±2.8% and 1007±44 ms in the exercise group, respectively. LVEF was borderline normal in both groups, with an LVEF<50% prevalence of 22.5% (n=40/178) in all participants. Compared with control, native T1 was statistically significantly lower in the exercise group (β=-20.16, 95% CI -35.35 to -4.97). We found no effect of exercise on ECV (β=-0.69, 95% CI -1.62 to 0.25), LVEF (β=-1.36, 95% CI -3.45 to 0.73) or GLS (β=0.31, 95% CI -0.76 to 1.37). Higher self-reported physical activity levels during chemotherapy were significantly associated with better native T1 and ECV. Conclusions In long-term breast cancer survivors, exercise and being more physically active during chemotherapy were associated with better structural but not functional cardiac parameters. The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction calls for additional research on cardioprotective measures, including alternative exercise regimens. Trial registration number NTR7247.
