Patients' view of routine follow-up after breast cancer treatment

Evolving strategies for the routine follow-up of patients with early breast cancer and the impact of COVID-19: a survey of healthcare providers

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a shift from routine in-person follow-up for early breast cancer (EBC) to the increased use of virtual assessments. This survey explored healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions around current practices and goals of follow-up.

METHODS

Canadian HCPs who treat EBC were contacted via an anonymous survey. Participants provided perspectives on follow-up, current practices, and interest in clinical trials assessing follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 73 HCPs including medical (n = 41/73, 56%), radiation (n = 13/73, 18%), and surgical oncologists (n = 13/73, 18%). Thirty-four percent (n = 25/73) of HCPs did not perform routine follow-up. Of the 48 (n = 48/73, 66%) who conducted in-person follow-up, it was typically 6-monthly for years 1-3, yearly until year 5, and then on-demand. Common reasons for follow-up visits were assessment of symptoms from endocrine therapy and for the detection of recurrent disease. HCPs felt routine follow-up with physical examination resulted in earlier detection of local (n = 16/48, 33%) and distant metastasis (n = 6/48, 12.5%). Forty-eight percent of HCPs felt that the transition to virtual visits would not impact either local or distant recurrence rates or overall survival. Sixty-nine percent (n = 33/48) will continue to follow patients with a combination of in-person and virtual appointments. Most respondents agreed that follow-up should be more individualized and risk adapted (n = 42/48, 87.5%). Most (62%, n = 29/47) expressed interest in performing trials assessing well follow-up strategies.

CONCLUSION

Virtual care will remain an integral part of routine follow-up. The effects of this on a range of patient outcomes should be explored in future trials.

Residual Risk of Ipsilateral Tumor Recurrence in Patients Who Achieved Clear Lumpectomy Margins After Repeated Resection

PURPOSE

Patients with breast cancer with positive lumpectomy margins have a two-fold increased risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). This can be the result of either technically incomplete resection or the biological characteristics of the tumor that lead to a positive margin. We hypothesized that if achieving negative margins by re-excision nullifies the IBTR risk, then the increased risk is mainly attributed to the technical incompleteness of the initial surgeries. Thus, we investigated IBTR rates in patients with breast cancer who achieved clear margins after re-excision.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent breast lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 at a single institution, and investigated IBTR events.

RESULTS

Among 5,598 patients, 793 achieved clear margins after re-excision of their initial positive margins. During the median follow-up period of 76.4 months, 121 (2.2%) patients experienced IBTR. Patients who underwent re-excision to achieve negative margin experienced significantly higher IBTR rates compared to those achieving clear margin at first lumpectomy (10-year IBTR rate: 5.3% vs. 2.6% [25 vs. 84 events]; unadjusted p = 0.031, hazard ratio, 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.48; adjusted p = 0.030, hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% CI, 1.05-2.72). This difference was more evident in patients aged < 50 years and those with delayed IBTR. Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in the spatial distribution of IBTR locations.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent re-excision for initial positive margins had an increased risk of IBTR, even after achieving a final negative margin, compared to patients with negative margins initially. This increased risk of IBTR is mostly observed in young patients and delayed cases.

Scanxiety among Adults with Cancer: A Scoping Review to Guide Research and Interventions

Background: Scan-related anxiety ("scanxiety") is distressing to people living with and beyond cancer. We conducted a scoping review to promote conceptual clarity, identify research practices and gaps, and guide intervention strategies for adults with a current or prior cancer diagnosis. Methods: Following a systematic search, we screened 6820 titles and abstracts, evaluated 152 full-text articles, and selected 36 articles. Definitions, study designs, measurement methods, correlates, and consequences of scanxiety were extracted and summarized. Results: The reviewed articles included individuals living with current cancer (n = 17) and those in the post-treatment phase (n = 19), across a breadth of cancer types and disease stages. In five articles, authors explicitly defined scanxiety. Multiple components of scanxiety were described, including those related to scan procedures (e.g., claustrophobia, physical discomfort) and scan results (e.g., implications for disease status and treatment), suggesting varied intervention approaches may be needed. Twenty-two articles used quantitative methods, nine used qualitative methods, and five used mixed methods. In 17 articles, symptom measures specifically referenced cancer scans; 24 included general measures without reference to scans. Scanxiety tended to be higher among those with lower education levels, less time since diagnosis, and greater baseline anxiety levels (three articles each). Although scanxiety often decreased immediately pre- to post-scan (six articles), participants reported the waiting period between scan and results to be particularly stressful (six articles). Consequences of scanxiety included poorer quality of life and somatic symptoms. Scanxiety promoted follow-up care for some patients yet hindered it for others. Conclusions: Scanxiety is multi-faceted, heightened during the pre-scan and scan-to-results waiting periods, and associated with clinically meaningful outcomes. We discuss how these findings can inform future research directions and intervention approaches.

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.

Assessment of anxiety, depression, and distress in breast cancer patients: A comparison among different phases of illness

We aimed to assess the levels of anxious and depressive symptoms and distress in a sample of breast cancer patients in the different phases of the illness. We performed a cross-sectional study. We divided 301 female breast cancer patients into three groups, based on the phase of illness they were in being in post-surgery (N = 100), receiving adjuvant therapies (N = 86), and receiving follow-up care (N = 115). We included the follow-up within the phases of illness. We further divided each group into first diagnosed or with recurrence and we administered Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Distress Thermometer. First-diagnosed patients with clinically relevant anxiety increased from being post-surgery (35.8%), to receiving adjuvant therapies (53.7%), and to being in follow-up (61.5%). In patients with recurrence, distress was stable among the illness phases, but many patients had clinically relevant anxiety (55.65%) and depression (43.48%). First-diagnosed patients' emotional distress could be more linked to follow-up-related difficulties. During recurrence, high distress could be due to the failure of previous treatments. Distress screening can better orient psycho-social interventions and healthcare resources.

ePRO-based individual follow-up care for women treated for early breast cancer: impact on service use and workflows

PURPOSE

The increasing population of breast cancer survivors highlights the need to (re)consider how we utilize available services for survivorship care in oncology clinics. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePROs) can be used to identify patients' individual care needs and triage them to the right services. We examined the impact on service use, workflow and workload following the introduction of an ePRO-based individual follow-up (PIFU) for women treated for early breast cancer.

METHODS

A multi-method approach was used. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, the use of consultations, telephone calls, and specialist referrals were systematically recorded. Comparison was done between PIFU and standard follow-up care (SFU). Focus group interviews with nurse navigators evaluated the impact on workflow and workload qualitatively.

RESULTS

The 64 women randomized to attend SFU used a mean of 3.8 (95% CI: 3.5-4.1) planned consultations during the 2-year study period compared with a mean of 1.9 consultations (95% CI: 1.4-2.4) for the 60 women randomized to PIFU (P < 0.001). Urgent appointments were more frequent in SFU (mean of 0.47 vs 0.22 per patient, P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were observed in the use of telephone calls and specialist referrals. The nurse navigators did not experience an increase in their workload, but implementation of PIFU may require a re-structured workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

The ePRO-based individual follow-up could change organization of care and re-allocate services for those in need of it.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

ePRO-based individual follow-up could potentially ensure more time for those most in need of face-to-face care.