Breast cancer survivorship care beyond local and systemic therapy

Assessing health outcomes: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology

PURPOSE

This study investigates the clinical impact of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring apps/web interfaces, aimed at symptom-management, in cancer patients undergoing outpatient systemic antineoplastic treatment. Additionally, it explores the advantages offered by these applications, including their functionalities and healthcare team-initiated follow-up programmes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE. Inclusion criteria encompassed primary studies assessing symptom burden through at-home ePRO surveys in adult cancer patients receiving outpatient systemic antineoplastic treatment, whenever health outcomes were evaluated. Exclusion criteria excluded telemedicine-based interventions other than ePRO questionnaires and non-primary articles or study protocols. To evaluate the potential bias in the included studies, an exhaustive quality assessment was conducted, as an additional inclusion filter.

RESULTS

Among 246 identified articles, 227 were excluded for non-compliance with inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 19 articles, only eight met the rigorous validity assessment and were included for detailed examination and data extraction, presented in attached tables.

CONCLUSION

This review provides compelling evidence of ePRO monitoring's positive clinical impact across diverse cancer settings, encompassing various cancer types, including early and metastatic stages. These systems are crucial in enabling timely interventions and reducing communication barriers, among other functionalities. While areas for future ePRO innovation are identified, the primary limitation lies in comparing clinical outcomes of reviewed articles, due to scale variability and study population heterogeneity. To conclude, our results reaffirm the transformative potential of ePRO apps in oncology and their pivotal role in shaping the future of cancer care.

Comprehensive Young Age Breast Cancer registry from clinical, genomics, and patient-reported outcomes measured with 15 years follow-up: the CHARM cohort profile

BACKGROUND

In recognition of the distinct clinical challenges and research gaps in young breast cancer (YBC) patients, we established the Comprehensive Young Age Breast Cancer (CHARM) registry to collect prospective data.

METHODS

This prospective cohort included patients who were newly diagnosed with histologically confirmed breast cancer without prior treatment at the Samsung Medical Center (SMC) in April 2013. We included patients who were either 40 years old or younger at the time of diagnosis, pregnant at breast cancer diagnosis or diagnosed with breast cancer within 1 year of delivery. All data were collected using Medidata's Rave Electronic Data. Clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records. Two experienced pathologists reviewed the pathologic data. Bone mineral densitometry tests have been conducted annually. To obtain multi-omics data, tumor tissues and blood samples were prospectively collected from consenting patients in the registry during surgery. The fertility-related factor also collected collaborated with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Anti-Müllerian hormone, estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone levels were measured using an additional blood sample from baseline to last follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using mobile questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 1868 participants were included in the SMC YBC study. The average (standard deviation) age was 35.57 (3.79) and 99.8% of the participants were premenopausal. Among them, 1062 participants completed the PRO questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMC YBC cohort serves as a comprehensive registry for YBC to optimize care and improve knowledge regarding the management of YBC.

Patient-reported Quality of Life After Breast-conserving Surgery With Radiotherapy Versus Mastectomy and Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes in breast cancer survivors who received breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (BCS+RT) with those who received a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery (Mast+Recon) without radiotherapy and identify other important factors.

BACKGROUND

The long-term differences in patient-reported QOL outcomes following BCS+RT and Mast+Recon are not well understood.

METHODS

We identified patients from the Texas Cancer Registry with stage 0-II breast cancer diagnosed in 2009-2014 after BCS+RT or Mast+Recon without radiotherapy. Sampling was stratified by age and race and ethnicity. A paper survey was sent to 4800 patients which included validated BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules. Multivariable linear regression models were implemented for each outcome. Minimal clinically important difference for BREAST-Q and PROMIS modules, respectively, was 4 points and 2 points.

RESULTS

Of 1215 respondents (25.3% response rate), 631 received BCS+RT and 584 received Mast+Recon. The median interval from diagnosis to survey completion was 9 years. In adjusted analysis, Mast+Recon was associated with worse BREAST-Q psychosocial well-being (effect size: -3.80, P =0.04) and sexual well-being (effect size: -5.41, P =0.02), but better PROMIS physical function (effect size: 0.54, P =0.03) and similar BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts, physical well-being, and PROMIS upper extremity function ( P >0.05) compared with BCS+RT. Only the difference in sexual well-being reached clinical significance. Older (≥65) patients receiving BCS+RT and younger (<50) patients receiving autologous Mast+Recon typically reported higher QOL scores. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with detriments to multiple QOL domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent Mast+Recon reported worse long-term sexual well-being compared with BCS+RT. Older patients derived a greater benefit from BCS+RT, while younger patients derived a greater benefit from Mast+Recon. These data inform preference-sensitive decision-making for women with early-stage breast cancer.

High neuroticism is associated with common late adverse effects in a nationwide sample of long-term breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Neuroticism is a basic personality trait characterized by negative emotions triggered by stress such as a breast cancer diagnosis and its treatment. Due to lack of relevant research, the purpose of this study was to examine if high neuroticism is associated with seven common late adverse effects (LAEs) in long-term (≥ 5 years) breast cancer survivors (BCSs).

METHODS

All female Norwegian BCSs aged 20-65 years when diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in 2011 or 2012 were invited to a questionnaire study in 2019 (N = 2803), of whom 48% participated (N = 1355). Neuroticism was self-rated using the abridged version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and scores dichotomized into high and low neuroticism. LAEs were defined by categorization of ratings on the EORTC QLQ-C30 (cognitive function, pain, and sleep problems) and QLQ-BR23 (arm problems) questionnaires, and categorizations of scale scores on mental distress, fatigue, and neuropathy. Associations between high neuroticism and LAEs were explored using multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

High neuroticism was found in 40% (95%CI 37-42%) of BCSs. All LAEs were significantly more common among BCSs with high compared to low neuroticism. In multivariable analyses, high neuroticism was positively associated with all LAEs except neuropathy. Systemic treatment, somatic comorbidity, and not being in paid work were also significantly associated with all LAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

High neuroticism is prevalent and associated with increased risks of LAEs among BCSs. Identification of high neuroticism could improve the follow-up care of BCSs as effective interventions for the condition exist.

Racial and ethnic disparities in mortality among breast cancer survivors after a second malignancy

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic differences in survival after a first cancer are well established but have not been examined after a second primary cancer (SPC) despite the increasing incidence among survivors.

METHODS

We examined 39 029 female breast cancer survivors who developed an SPC between 2000 and 2014 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 database. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression for competing risks data was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality after SPCs comparing Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Asian, and Non-Hispanic Black survivors with Non-Hispanic White survivors. Models were adjusted for sociodemographics, tumor characteristics, and treatments of the first and second cancer. Analyses were stratified by SPC type.

RESULTS

During 17 years of follow-up, there were 15 117 deaths after SPCs. The risk of cancer death was 12% higher among Non-Hispanic Black survivors (HR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.19) and 8% higher among Hispanic survivors (HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.16) compared with Non-Hispanic White survivors. In subgroup analyses, the strongest associations were observed among Non-Hispanic Black survivors with a second breast or uterine cancer and among Hispanic survivors with a second breast cancer. Non-Hispanic Black survivors also experienced a 44% higher risk of cardiovascular disease death after SPC diagnosis than Non-Hispanic White survivors (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher cancer mortality among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic survivors and higher cardiovascular mortality among Non-Hispanic Black survivors exist among women who survive a first breast cancer to develop an SPC. Studies focused on identifying the contributors to these disparities are needed to enable implementation of effective mitigation strategies.

Dynamics of Long-Term Patient-Reported Quality of Life and Health Behaviors After Adjuvant Breast Cancer Chemotherapy

We aimed to characterize long-term quality of life (QOL) trajectories among patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and to identify related patterns of health behaviors.

Late effects in a high-risk population of breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To better understand the impact of cancer and treatment on outcomes and guide program development, we evaluated breast cancer survivors at risk for long-term medical and psychosocial issues who participated in survivorship care visits (SVs) at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective survey study of women with stage I-III breast cancer who participated in SVs from 2010-2016. The same 56-item questionnaire administered at SV and follow-up included an assessment of symptoms, social factors, demographics, anxiety, depression, and comorbidities. We added the Godin Exercise questionnaire to the follow-up.

RESULTS

In 2018, 74 participants were identified as disease-free and mailed a follow-up survey; 52 (70.3%) completed the survey. At a median follow-up time of 3.1 years after diagnosis, participants were less likely to be employed (54% vs. 67%) than at the SV. About two-thirds were sedentary, and this was associated with high body mass index (p = 0.02). Sufficiently active participants (≥ 150 min per week of moderate-intensity activity) were less likely to report pain (p = 0.02) or fatigue (p = 0.001). Although 19% had moderate/severe anxiety or depression at follow-up, participants who reported employment satisfaction were less likely to be depressed (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of issues faced by survivors is critical for enhancing care and developing models to identify patients who might benefit most from targeted long-term interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Interventions to address physical activity, persistent symptoms, and mental health are critical for breast cancer survivors.

Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations.

DESIGN

Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK.

PARTICIPANTS

829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's disease, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ).

RESULTS

For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.12; P<0.001; Cohen's D effect size=0.5). Analysis of MSAS sub-domains indicated significant reductions in favour of ASyMS for global distress index (-0.21, -0.27 to -0.16; P<0.001), psychological symptoms (-0.16, -0.23 to -0.10; P<0.001), and physical symptoms (-0.21, -0.26 to -0.17; P<0.001). FACT-G scores were higher in the intervention group across all cycles (mean difference 4.06, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 5.46; P<0.001), whereas mean scores for STAI-R trait (-1.15, -1.90 to -0.41; P=0.003) and STAI-R state anxiety (-1.13, -2.06 to -0.20; P=0.02) were lower. CASE-Cancer scores were higher in the intervention group (mean difference 0.81, 0.19 to 1.43; P=0.01), and most SCNS-SF34 domains were lower, including sexuality needs (-1.56, -3.11 to -0.01; P<0.05), patient care and support needs (-1.74, -3.31 to -0.16; P=0.03), and physical and daily living needs (-2.8, -5.0 to -0.6; P=0.01). Other SCNS-SF34 domains and WLQ were not significantly different. Safety of ASyMS was satisfactory. Neutropenic events were higher in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A "medium" Cohen's effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients' symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081.

Treatment Decision Making and Financial Toxicity in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oncologists have increasingly been proponents of shared decision making (SDM) to enhance patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary health care spending. However, its effect on patient out-of-pocket costs is unknown. This study investigated the relationship between patient preferences for SDM and financial toxicity (FT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women aged ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama from 2017 to 2019. Patients self-reported their SDM preference (Control Preferences Scale) and FT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] tool; 11-item scale, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Effect sizes were calculated using the proportion of variance explained (R²) or Cramer's V. Differences in FT by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist.

RESULTS

In 95 women with MBC, 44% preferred SDM, 29% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 27% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (53% vs. 39%; V = 0.12) with an income greater than $40,000/y (55% vs. 43%; V = 0.18). Overall median COST was 22 (interquartile range, 16-29). After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patients preferring patient-driven decision making trended toward worse FT (COST 17: 95% confidence interval, 12-22) compared to those preferring SDM (COST 19: 95% confidence interval, 15-23) and those preferring provider-driven decision making (COST 22: 95% confidence interval, 17-27).

CONCLUSION

Patients preferring more patient-driven decision making reported worse FT, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand this relationship.