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.
MULTIFILE
Purpose: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)efectiveness of personalised follow-up. Methods: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01–01-2010 and 10–10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients≥18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. Results: Overall, 3708 publications were identifed, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation efect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. Conclusion: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the efectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Aftercare for curatively treated breast cancer patients includes support and information provision. As patients differ in their needs, personalization of aftercare is advocated, but clear guidelines on how to achieve personalization are currently missing. This study investigates patients’ preferences regarding assessment of care needs and information provision. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 breast cancer patients (15 female, 3 male) who received aftercare for at least three months in five Dutch hospitals. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Several patients perceived current aftercare as too intensive or too little, therefore they preferred to discuss their needs beforehand with their health care provider to align aftercare with their needs. Patients preferred more attention to needs on the domains of social and emotional wellbeing and return to work. Patients preferred a comprehensive resource of information on potential (late) effects of cancer and its treatment and of available support options, enabling them to self-manage the dosage and timing of desired information. Patients had positive expectations about an aftercare plan, as it would provide a better overview of their care needs, support options and agreements about the aftercare trajectory. Conclusions: To facilitate personalization in aftercare, information and care needs should be better addressed and summarized in an aftercare plan. Patients and healthcare practitioners should create the aftercare plan together in shared decision-making. A supporting tool is needed to improve assessment of care needs on multiple domains, to provide layered information and facilitate use of aftercare plans.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The increasing number of cancer survivors has heightened demands on hospital-based follow-up care resources. To address this, involving general practitioners (GPs) in oncological follow-up is proposed. This study explores secondary care providers’ views on integrating GPs into follow-up care for curatively treated breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with Dutch medical specialists and nurse practitioners. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis by two independent researchers. Results: Fifteen medical specialists and nine nurse practitioners participated. They identified barriers such as re-referral delays, inexperience to perform structured follow-up, and worries about the lack of oncological knowledge among GPs. Benefits included the GPs’ accessibility and their contextual knowledge. For future organization, they emphasized the need for hospital logistics changes, formal GP training, sufficient case-load, proper staffing, remuneration, and time allocation. They suggested that formal GP involvement should initially be implemented for frail older patients and for prevalent cancer types. Conclusions: The interviewed Dutch secondary care providers generally supported formal involvement of primary care in cancer follow-up. A well-organized shared-care model with defined roles and clear coordination, supported by individual patients, was considered essential. This approach requires logistics adaptation, resources, and training for GPs. Implications for cancer survivors: Integrating oncological follow-up into routine primary care through a shared-care model may lead to personalized, effective, and efficient care for survivors because of their long-term relationships with GPs.
DOCUMENT
Introduction Around 25% of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients develop brain metastases, which vastly affects their overall survival and quality of life. According to the current clinical guidelines, regular magnetic resonance imaging screening is not recommended unless patients have recognized central nervous system-related symptoms. Patient Presentation The patient participated in the EFFECT study, a randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effects of a 9-month structured, individualized and supervised exercise intervention on quality of life, fatigue and other cancer and treatment-related side effects in patients with mBC. She attended the training sessions regularly and was supervised by the same trainer throughout the exercise program. In month 7 of participation, her exercise trainer detected subtle symptoms (e.g., changes in movement pattern, eye movement or balance), which had not been noticed or reported by the patient herself or her family, and which were unlikely to have been detected by the oncologist or other health care providers at that point since symptoms were exercise related. When suspicion of brain metastases was brought to the attention of the oncologist by the exercise trainer, the response was immediate, and led to early detection and treatment of brain metastases. Conclusion and clinical implications The brain metastases of this patient were detected earlier due to the recognition of subtle symptoms detected by her exercise trainer and the trust and rapid action by the clinician. The implementation of physical exercise programs for cancer patients requires well-trained professionals who know how to recognize possible alterations in patients and also, good communication between trainers and the medical team to enable the necessary actions to be taken.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: After treatment with chemotherapy, many patients with breast cancer experience cognitive problems. While limited interventions are available to improve cognitive functioning, physical exercise showed positive effects in healthy older adults and people with mild cognitive impairment. The Physical Activity and Memory study aims to investigate the effect of physical exercise on cognitive functioning and brain measures in chemotherapy-exposed patients with breast cancer with cognitive problems.METHODS AND ANALYTICS: One hundred and eighty patients with breast cancer with cognitive problems 2-4 years after diagnosis are randomised (1:1) into an exercise intervention or a control group. The 6-month exercise intervention consists of twice a week 1-hour aerobic and strength exercises supervised by a physiotherapist and twice a week 1-hour Nordic or power walking. The control group is asked to maintain their habitual activity pattern during 6 months. The primary outcome (verbal learning) is measured at baseline and 6 months. Further measurements include online neuropsychological tests, self-reported cognitive complaints, a 3-tesla brain MRI, patient-reported outcomes (quality of life, fatigue, depression, anxiety, work performance), blood sampling and physical fitness. The MRI scans and blood sampling will be used to gain insight into underlying mechanisms. At 18 months online neuropsychological tests, self-reported cognitive complaints and patient-reported outcomes will be repeated.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study results may impact usual care if physical exercise improves cognitive functioning for breast cancer survivors.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6104.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: In this study we aimed (1) to identify the most prevalent physical symptoms and functional limitations that limit physical activity of patients with palliative treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and (2) to identify their preferences for exercise-based physical therapy programs, as a first step towards the development of physical therapist (PT)-guided exercise programs for patients with MBC.METHODS: We performed a mixed-method study that comprised a cross-sectional survey and two focus group sessions among patients with MBC. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The focus groups were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed independently by two researchers, using directed content analysis.RESULTS: A total of 114 women (response rate 61%) completed the survey (mean age 63.5, SD 10.2). Eighty-six percent of the women reported at least some level of physical problems limiting their ability to be physically active, of whom 46% reported substantial problems. The most prevalent problems were fatigue, painful joints, painful muscles, and shortness of breath. Uptake of exercise appeared to be limited. Exercise preferences varied strongly. Fifty-three percent indicated a preference for some form of PT-supervision, and 34% for a prolonged period of time (> 8 weeks). Focus group results clarified that patients' preferences for supervision, by PTs with special qualifications in oncology, were related to feelings of insecurity about their ability to self-manage physical functioning.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MBC experience a broad range of physical health problems that limit their ability to be physically active. While preferences vary strongly, patients with MBC would value the availability of high quality, PT-guided, tailored exercise programs.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Patients with glioma often suffer from cognitive deficits. Physical exercise has been effective in ameliorating cognitive deficits in older adults and neurological patients. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored the possible impact of an exercise intervention, designed to improve cognitive functioning in glioma patients, regarding cognitive test performance and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Thirty-four clinically stable patients with World Health Organization grades II/III glioma were randomized to a home-based remotely coached exercise group or an active control group. Patients exercised 3 times per week for 20-45 minutes, with moderate to vigorous intensity, during 6 months. At baseline and immediate follow-up, cognitive performance and PROs were assessed with neuropsychological tests and questionnaires, respectively. Linear regression analyses were used to estimate effect sizes of potential between-group differences in cognitive performance and PROs at 6 months. Results: The exercise group (n = 21) had small- to medium-sized better follow-up scores than the control group (n = 11) on several measures of attention and information processing speed, verbal memory, and executive function, whereas the control group showed a slightly better score on a measure of sustained selective attention. The exercise group also demonstrated small- to medium-sized better outcomes on measures of self-reported cognitive symptoms, fatigue, sleep, mood, and mental health-related quality of life. Conclusions: This small exploratory RCT in glioma patients provides a proof of concept with respect to improvement of cognitive functioning and PROs after aerobic exercise, and warrants larger exercise trials in brain tumor patients.
DOCUMENT
From the article: Abstract Sub-chronic toxicity studies of 163 non-genotoxic chemicals were evaluated in order to predict the tumour outcome of 24-month rat carcinogenicity studies obtained from the EFSA and ToxRef databases. Hundred eleven of the 148 chemicals that did not induce putative preneoplastic lesions in the sub-chronic study also did not induce tumours in the carcinogenicity study (True Negatives). Cellular hypertrophy appeared to be an unreliable predictor of carcinogenicity. The negative predictivity, the measure of the compounds evaluated that did not show any putative preneoplastic lesion in de sub-chronic studies and were negative in the carcinogenicity studies, was 75%, whereas the sensitivity, a measure of the sub-chronic study to predict a positive carcinogenicity outcome was only 5%. The specificity, the accuracy of the sub-chronic study to correctly identify non-carcinogens was 90%. When the chemicals which induced tumours generally considered not relevant for humans (33 out of 37 False Negatives) are classified as True Negatives, the negative predictivity amounts to 97%. Overall, the results of this retrospective study support the concept that chemicals showing no histopathological risk factors for neoplasia in a sub-chronic study in rats may be considered non-carcinogenic and do not require further testing in a carcinogenicity study.
DOCUMENT
Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
DOCUMENT
