Open access follow-up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis

Patient-initiated follow-up for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: how we do it and 2 years of outcome data

BACKGROUND

For patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs), current guidance suggests we should offer post-treatment follow-up appointments at regular intervals for 24 months. Is this to improve prognosis, provide psychological support or find the next cancer? Recent data confirm that recurrence and metastasis are rarer events, and that perhaps these intense follow-up schedules do not really lead to improved health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To question whether current follow-up practices are truly needed by introducing an option of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU).

METHODS

We enrolled 476 patients with cSCC (January 2020-January 2023) who fulfilled the definition of high-risk cSCC based on guidelines in use at the time. Of the total, 59 did not fulful the inclusion criteria and were excluded; 250 (52.5%) did not recontact us during the 2-year period, with no clinical record of complications or recurrences; and 167 (35.1%) utilized the PIFU pathway, of which 119 patients required only one face-to-face appointment. Seven patients (1.5%) developed metastatic disease, 11 (2.3%) developed recurrence and 68 (14.3%) developed cSCC at another site. All lesions were identified by the patient via PIFU. We saved 1250 follow-up appointments from those who did not contact us (n = 250), financially equating to £181 462.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data imply that PIFU can be considered safe alternative practice for patients with cSCC. Patients independently identified the need for review without scheduled follow-up, making these appointments available to other patient cohorts. Although follow-up appointments may provide mental health support, they can be inconvenient and not the ideal use of our healthcare resources. Our findings support a call for revision of existing skin cancer health policies to cope with and subsequently improve our practices for better patient care.

The impact of age on physical functioning after treatment for breast cancer, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to explore the impact of age on physical functioning post-treatment for early-stage, locally advanced, or locally recurrent breast cancer, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), identify PROMs used and variations in physical functioning terms/labels.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EmBase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED were searched, along with relevant key journals and reference lists. Risk of bias (quality) assessment was conducted using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data was synthesised through tables and narrative.

RESULTS

28,207 titles were extracted from electronic databases, resulting in 44 studies with age sub-groups, and 120 without age sub-groups. Of those with findings on the impact of age, there was variability in the way findings were reported and 21 % found that age did not have a significant impact. However, 66 % of the studies found that with older age, physical functioning declined post-treatment. Comorbidities were associated with physical functioning declines. However, findings from sub-groups (breast cancer stage, treatment type and time post-treatment) lacked concordance. Twenty-eight types of PROM were used: the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most common (50.6 %), followed by the SF-36 (32.3 %). There were 145 terms/labels for physical functioning: 'physical functioning/function' was used most often (82.3 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point towards an older age and comorbidities being associated with more physical functioning declines. However, it was not possible to determine if stage, treatment type and time since treatment had any influence. More consistent use of the terminology 'physical functioning/function' would aid future comparisons of study results.

Nurse-Led Individualized Follow-Up Versus Regular Physician-Led Visits After Early Breast Cancer (MyHealth): A Phase III Randomized, Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Follow-up after breast cancer with regular visits has failed to detect recurrences, be cost-effective, and address patient needs.

METHODS

MyHealth is a phase III randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02949167). Patients, who recently completed primary treatment for stage I-II breast cancer, were randomly assigned in variable block sizes and stratified by age and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status to intervention or control follow-up. The nurse-led intervention comprised three to five individual self-management sessions, regular reporting of symptoms, and navigation to health care services. The control follow-up comprised regular outpatient visits with the physician. The primary outcome was breast cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) measured by the Trial Outcome Index-Physical/Functional/Breast summary score of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast 2 years after random assignment. Secondary outcomes were fear of recurrence, anxiety, depression, and health care utilization. Analyses were intention-to-treat and P values were two-sided with 95% confidence level set at 0.005 because of multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Among 1,101 eligible patients, 875 were invited and 503 were randomly assigned to control (n = 252) or intervention (n = 251) follow-up. At 2 years, patients in the intervention group reported a significantly and clinically relevant higher QoL (mean, 75.69 [standard deviation [SD], 12.27]) than patients in the control group (71.26 [SD, 14.08]), with a mean difference of 5.05 (95% CI, 3.30 to 6.79; P < .001). The intervention group reported significantly less fear of recurrence, anxiety, and depression; they had fewer physician consultations but more nurse contacts and an unchanged diagnostic imaging pattern. The effect on all outcomes was stable through a 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The MyHealth study suggested a new strategy for follow-up after early breast cancer as it provided significant improvements in QoL.

Impact of different follow-up regimens on health-related quality of life and costs in endometrial cancer patients: Results from the TOTEM randomized trial

PURPOSE

To investigate whether intensive follow-up (INT) after surgery for endometrial cancer impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and healthcare costs compared to minimalist follow-up (MIN), in the absence of evidence supporting any benefit on 5-year overall survival.

METHODS

In the TOTEM trial, HRQoL was assessed using the SF-12 and the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) questionnaires at baseline, after 6 and 12 months and then annually up to 5 years of follow-up. Costs were analyzed after 4 years of follow-up from a National Health Service perspective, stratified by risk level. The probability of missing data was analyzed for both endpoints.

RESULTS

1847 patients were included in the analyses. The probability of missing data was not influenced by the study arms (MIN vs INT OR: 0.97 95%CI: 0.87-1.08). Longitudinal changes in HRQoL scores did not differ between the two follow-up regimens (MIN vs INT SF-12 PCS: -0.573, CI95%: -1.31; 0.16; SF-12 MCS: -0.243, CI95%: -1.08; 0.59; PGWB: -0.057, CI95%: -0,88; 0,77). The mean cost difference between the intensive and minimalist arm was €531 for low-risk patients and €683 for high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

In the follow-up of endometrial cancer after surgery, a minimalist treatment regimen did not affect quality of life and was cost-saving in both low-risk and high-risk recurrence patients. As previous results showed no survival benefit, a minimalist approach is justified. The relevant proportion of missing data on secondary outcomes of interest could be a critical point that deserves special attention.

Feasibility and acceptability of study methods and psychosocial interventions for body image among women diagnosed with breast cancer: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for body image among women diagnosed with breast cancer and the study methods used to evaluate the interventions in question.

METHODS

Articles were identified via MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsychINFO, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria were: (1) peer-reviewed publication in English from 2000 onward with accessible full-text, (2) reported data on the feasibility and/or acceptability of psychosocial interventions and/or study methods, (3) included at least one measure of body image or reported a body-related theme, and (4) sample comprised women diagnosed with breast cancer. All study designs were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles were included. Participants and comparator groups varied as did interventions. Feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and study methods were inconsistently operationalized and reported across studies. Evidence of feasibility and acceptability was heterogeneous within and across studies, though mostly positive.

CONCLUSION

Published psychosocial interventions for body image and study methods are generally feasible and acceptable. Findings should be used to advance the development, implementation, and evaluation of interventions designed to improve outcomes (body image or otherwise) for women diagnosed with breast cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; ID: CRD42021269062, 11 September 2021).

Patient-initiated follow-up in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: A long-term follow-up of the OPAL trial

OBJECTIVE

A long-term follow-up of the OPAL trial to compare the effect of patient-initiated (PIFU) versus hospital-based (HBFU) follow-up on fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), quality of life (QoL) and healthcare use after 34 months of follow-up.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial.

SETTING

Four Danish departments of gynaecology between May 2013 and May 2016.

POPULATION

212 women diagnosed with stage I low-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

The control group attended HBFU with regular outpatient visits (i.e., 8) for 3 years after primary treatment. The intervention group underwent PIFU with no prescheduled visits but with instructions about alarm symptoms and options of self-referral.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The endpoints were FCR as measured by the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) and QoL as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire C-30 (EORTC QLQ C-30), and healthcare use as measured by questionnaires and chart reviews after 34 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

FCR decreased from baseline to 34 months in both groups and no difference was found between allocations (difference -6.31 [95% confidence interval -14.24 to 1.63]). QoL remained stable with no difference in any domains between the two arms at 34 months using a linear mixed model analysis. The use of healthcare was significantly lower in the PIFU group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patient-initiated follow-up is a valid alternative to hospital-based follow-up for people who have been treated for endometrial cancer and have low risk of recurrence.

Assessing Mode of Recurrence in Breast Cancer to Identify an Optimised Follow-Up Pathway: 10-Year Institutional Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer surveillance programmes ensure early identification of recurrence which maximises overall survival. Programmes include annual clinical examination and radiological assessment. There remains debate around the value of annual clinical exam in diagnosing recurrent disease/second primaries. The aim was to assess diagnostic modalities for recurrent breast cancer with a focus on evaluating the role of annual clinical examination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospectively maintained database from a symptomatic breast cancer service between 2010-2020 was reviewed. Patients with biopsy-proven recurrence/second breast primary were included. The primary outcome was the diagnostic modality by which recurrences/secondary breast cancers were observed. Diagnostic modalities included (i) self-detection by the patient, (ii) clinical examination by a breast surgeon or (iii) radiological assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients were identified and, following application of exclusion criteria, a total of 140 patients were included. A total of 65/140 (46%) patients were diagnosed clinically, either by self-detection or clinical examination, while 75/140 (54%) were diagnosed radiologically. A total of 59/65 (91%) of patients clinically diagnosed with recurrence presented to the breast clinic after self-detection of an abnormality. Four (6%) patients had cognitive impairment and recurrence was diagnosed by a carer. Two (3%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence by a breast surgeon at clinical examination. The median time to recurrence in all patients was 48 months (range 2-263 months).

CONCLUSION

Clinical examination provides little value in diagnosing recurrence (< 5%) and surveillance programmes may benefit from reduced focus on such a modality. Regular radiological assessment and ensuring patients have urgent/easy access to a breast clinic if they develop new symptoms/signs should be the focus of surveillance programmes.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer

BACKGROUND

The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).

Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous trials found that more intensive postoperative surveillance schedules did not improve survival. Oncological follow-up also provides an opportunity to address psychological issues (for example anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence). This systematic review assessed the impact of a less intensive surveillance strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emotional well-being, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing different follow-up strategies after oncological surgery and their effect on HRQoL and patient satisfaction, published before 4 May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on the most relevant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscales.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were identified, focusing on melanoma (4), colorectal (10), breast (7), prostate (4), upper gastrointestinal (4), gynaecological (3), lung (2), and head and neck (1) cancers. Twenty-two studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, of which 14 showed no significant difference in HRQoL between follow-up approaches. Five studies with a low risk of bias showed improved HRQoL or emotional well-being with a less intensive follow-up approach and three with an intensive approach. Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes revealed no negative effects for patients receiving less intensive follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Low-intensity follow-up does not diminish HRQoL, emotional well-being, or patient satisfaction.

Patient initiated follow-up in cancer patients: A systematic review

Background

Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) is increasingly being implemented for oncology patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the necessary reduction in face-to-face hospital outpatient appointments. We do not know if PIFU has a positive (or negative) impact on overall, or progression free, survival.

Objectives

To investigate the impact of PIFU on overall survival, progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, specifically quality of life (QoL) and economic costs compared to hospital follow up (HFU), for any type of cancer.

Methods

We carried out a systematic review using five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were eligible if they were controlled clinical trials comparing PIFU with another form of active follow-up. Effectiveness was assessed using the primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes of progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, QoL and cost effectiveness.

Results

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Only one study included survival as a primary outcome and indicated no significant differences between hospital-based follow-up and PIFU, although not adequately powered to detect a difference in survival. For secondary outcomes, few differences were found between PIFU and other forms of active follow-up. One study reported significant differences in fear of cancer recurrence between PIFU and HFU although did not reach the limit of clinical significance; in the short term, fear decreased significantly more in hospital based follow-up.

Conclusion

We do not have evidence to support the impact of PIFU on survival or progression free survival. Fully powered randomized controlled trials are required to determine the full impact of PIFU in the longer term.

Varying severities of symptoms underline the relevance of personalized follow-up care in breast cancer survivors: latent class cluster analyses in a cross-sectional cohort

PURPOSE

Insights into the severity of co-existing symptoms can help in identifying breast cancer survivors in need of symptom management. We aimed to identify subgroups of breast cancer survivors based on patterns of symptom severity, and characteristics associated with these subgroups.

METHODS

We selected surgically treated stage I-III breast cancer survivors 1-5 years post-diagnosis from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 876). We assessed experienced severity of fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite, constipation, diarrhea, and emotional and cognitive symptoms through the EORTC-QLQ-C30 Quality of Life Questionnaire on a scale of 0-100. We determined subgroups of survivors using latent class cluster analyses (LCA) based on severity of co-existing symptoms and compared their mean severity to the age-matched female reference population to interpret clinical relevance. We assessed subgroup characteristics by multinomial logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

From 404 respondents (46%), three subgroups of survivors with distinct symptom severity were identified: low severity (n = 116, 28.7%), intermediate severity (n = 224, 55.4%), and high severity (n = 59, 14.6%). The low subgroup reported lower symptom severity than the general population; the intermediate subgroup reported a similar symptom severity, although scores for fatigue, insomnia, and cognitive symptoms were worse (small-medium clinical relevance). The high subgroup had worse symptom severity (medium-large clinical relevance). Compared to the intermediate subgroup, one (RRR: 2.75; CI: 1.22-6.19; p = 0.015) or more (RRR: 9.19; CI: 3.70-22.8; p =  < 0.001) comorbidities were significantly associated with the high subgroup. We found no associated treatment characteristics.

CONCLUSION

We identified distinct subgroups of breast cancer survivors based on symptom severity, underlining the relevance of further exploring personalized follow-up strategies.

Health care professionals' perspectives on shared decision making supported by personalised‐risk‐for‐recurrences‐calculations regarding surveillance after breast cancer

Objective

Breast cancer patients for whom less intensive surveillance is sufficient can be identified based on the risk for locoregional recurrences (LRRs). This study explores health care professionals' (HCPs) perspectives on less intensive surveillance, preferences for shared decision‐making (SDM) about surveillance and perspectives on the use of patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs in decision‐making about surveillance.

Methods

We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 21 HCPs providing follow‐up care for breast cancer patients in seven Dutch teaching hospitals (Santeon hospitals).

Results

HCPs were predominantly positive about less intensive surveillance for women with a low risk for recurrences. They mentioned important prerequisites such as clearly defined surveillance schedules based on risk categories, information provision and communication support for patients and HCPs. Most HCPs supported SDM about surveillance and were positive about using patients' estimated personal risk for LRRs. HCPs specified prerequisites such as clear visualisation and explanation of risk information, attention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and defined surveillance schedules for specific risk groups.

Conclusion

Mentioned prerequisites for less intensive surveillance need to be accounted for. Information needs and existing misconceptions need to be addressed. Outcome information regarding risks for LRRs and FCR can enrich the SDM process about surveillance.

Patient initiated follow up in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The demand for outpatient hospital appointments has risen steadily over recent years, almost doubling since 2008; now standing at 120 million appointments per year. Initiatives to reduce unnecessary appointments are a key area of interest, as they can be an effective way of both improving patient care and satisfaction, as well as reducing NHS costs. Patient Initiated Follow-Up (PIFU) provides an alternative to traditional hospital instigated follow-up, by which patients have autonomy in their future care, allowing them to make appointments based on their own perception of need. PIFU has proved successful when implemented in Rheumatology, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Oncology, with trends towards reduced burden on outpatient appointments, improved patient satisfaction and lower costs. To-date, the use of PIFU in women's health has been limited to gynaecological oncology, where observations include high patient satisfaction and fewer appointments than traditional follow-up. This study aims to undertake a systematic review of the literature relating to PIFU in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in order to identify evidence-based indications for PIFU in the specialty, as well as form a foundation for a subsequent service evaluation.

METHODS

The project was registered with Prospero, University of York. Using the OVID platform, a literature search was conducted using the terms "patient initiated follow up", "gynaecology", "women's health", and "follow up care". Papers were then screened in accordance with the PRISMA protocol, and relevant articles identified based on our inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data from the studies were extracted and compared.

RESULTS

Eight papers were identified as relevant, two were randomised controlled trials, three were retrospective cohort studies, and the remaining three were prospective cohort studies. The majority of these studies (5/8) were of good quality, scoring 6 or more points on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Four of the eight studies examined cost-effectives; all reported cost-savings relating to PIFU. Seven of the eight studies also reported an association between PIFU and greater patient satisfaction, fewer overall appointments and reduced non-attendance. One study reported no effect on patient satisfaction. Five studies related to gynaecological oncology, two were obstetric and one urogynaecology. The studies which investigated PIFU use in selected gynaecological oncology patients reported that PIFU did not have a negative impact on detection of cancer recurrence, but evidence regarding the psychological impact of PIFU on cancer survivors was conflicting.

CONCLUSION

PIFU was received largely positively and was well accepted by women across these studies. It was also shown to be cost-effective, without a negative impact on health outcomes. PIFU also has the potential to offer additional benefits including reducing diagnostic delay and increasing patient engagement with their own health status. This review found a paucity of data for PIFU in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, with the exception of gynaecological oncology, and further evaluation is required before more widespread implementation.

Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

AIMS

Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up - lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence - and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.

The COVID-19 pandemic: An opportunity to rethink and harmonise the frequency of follow-up visits for patients with early stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

While routine, in-person follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients (EBC) after completion of initial treatment is common, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes in clinical practice. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting different frequencies of routine follow-up.

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from database inception to July 16, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCS) evaluating different frequencies of routine follow-up. Citations were assessed by pairs of independent reviewers. Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. Findings were summarized narratively.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3316 studies, of which 7 (6 RCTs and 1 PCS) were eligible. Study endpoints included; quality of life (QoL; 5 RCTs and 1 PCS), disease free survival (DFS) (1 RCT), overall survival (OS) (1 RCT) and cost-effectiveness (1 RCT). The results showed reduction in follow-up frequency had no adverse effect on: QoL (6 studies, n = 920), DFS (1 trial, n = 472) or OS (1 trial, n = 472), but improved cost-effectiveness (1 trial, n = 472). Four RCTs specifically examined follow-up on-demand versus scheduled follow-up visits and found no statistically significant differences in QoL (n = 544).

CONCLUSION

While no evidence-based guidelines suggest that follow-up of EBC patients improves DFS or OS, routinely scheduled in-person assessment is common. RCT data suggests that reduced frequency of follow-up has no adverse effects.

Clinical pathways and patient-related outcomes in hospital-based settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical pathways represent a multi-disciplinary approach to translate clinical practice guidelines into practical interventions. The literature from 2010 onward regarding the efficacy of adopting a clinical pathway on patient-related outcomes within the in-hospital setting has not been synthesized yet. For this reason, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to critically synthesize the literature from 2010 onward about the efficacy of clinical pathways, compared with standard of care, on patient-related outcomes in different populations and to determine the effects of clinical pathways on patient outcomes. We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and reference lists of the included studies. Two independent reviewers screened the 360 identified articles and selected fifteen eligible articles, which were evaluated for content and risk of bias. Eleven studies were finally included. Given the commonalities of the measured outcomes, a meta-analysis including eight studies was performed to evaluate the effect size of the associations between clinical pathways and quality of life (OR=1.472 [0.483–4.486]; p=0.496), and two meta-analyses, including four studies, were performed to evaluate the effect sizes of the associations between clinical pathways with satisfaction (OR=2.226 [0.868–5.708]; p=0.096) and length of stay (OR=0,585 [0.349–0.982]; p=0.042). Reduced length of stay appeared to be associated with clinical pathways, while it remains unclear whether adopting clinical pathways could improve levels of quality of life and satisfaction. More primary research is required to determine in specific populations the efficacy of clinical pathways on patient-related outcomes. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Specialist breast care nurses for support of women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Interventions by specialist breast cancer nurses (SBCNs) aim to support women and help them cope with the impact of the disease on their quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of individual interventions carried out by SBCNs on indicators of quality of life, anxiety, depression, and participant satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Trials only), Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialist Register (CBCG SR), CINAHL, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions carried out by SBCNs for women with breast cancer, which reported indicators of quality of life, anxiety, depression, and participant satisfaction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A narrative description of the results including structured tabulation was carried out.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs involving 2905 women. With the exception of one study (women with advanced breast cancer), all the women were diagnosed with primary breast cancer. Mean age ranged from 48 to 64 years. Psychosocial nursing interventions compared with standard care for women with primary breast cancer Eight studies (1328 women, low-quality evidence) showed small improvements in general health-related quality of life or no difference in effect between nine weeks and 18 months. Six studies (897 women, low-quality evidence) showed small improvements in cancer-specific quality of life or no difference in effect between nine weeks and 18 months. Six studies (951 women, low-quality evidence) showed small improvements in anxiety and depression between nine weeks and 18 months. Two studies (320 women, low-quality evidence) measured satisfaction during survivorship; one study measured satisfaction only in the intervention group and showed high levels of satisfaction with care; the second study showed equal satisfaction with care in both groups at six months. Psychosocial nursing interventions compared with other supportive care interventions for women with primary breast cancer Two studies (351 women, very-low quality evidence) measured general health-related quality of life. One study reported that psychological morbidity reduced over the 12-month period; scores were consistently lower in women supported by SBCNs alone compared to support from a voluntary organisation. The other study reported that at six months, women receiving psychosocial support by either SBCNs or psychologists clinically improved from "higher levels of distress" to "lower levels of distress". One study (179 women, very-low quality evidence) showed no between-group differences on subscales at all time points up to six months measured using cancer-specific quality of life questionnaires. There were significant group-by-time changes in the global quality of life, nausea and vomiting, and systemic therapy side effects subscales, for women receiving psychosocial support by either SBCNs or psychologists at six months. There were improvements in other subscales over time in both groups. Systemic therapy side effects increased significantly in the psychologist group but not in the SBCN group. Sexual functioning decreased in both groups. Two studies (351 women, very-low quality evidence) measured anxiety and depression. One study reported that anxiety subscale scores and state anxiety scores improved over six months but there was no effect on depression subscale scores in the SBCN group compared to the psychologist group. There was no group-by-time interaction on the anxiety and depression or state anxiety subscales. The other study reported that anxiety and depression scores reduced over the 12-month post-surgery period in the SBCN group; scores were consistently lower in women supported by SBCNs compared to support from a voluntary organisation. SBCN-led telephone interventions delivering follow-up care compared with usual care for women with primary breast cancer Three studies (931 women, moderate-quality evidence) reported general health-related quality of life outcomes. Two studies reported no difference in psychological morbidity scores between SBCN-led follow-up care and standard care at 18 to 24 months. One trial reported no change in feelings of control scores between SBCN-led follow-up care and standard care at 12 months. Two studies (557 women, moderate-quality evidence) reported no between-group difference in cancer-specific quality of life at 18 to 24 months. A SBCN intervention conducted by telephone, as a point-of-need access to specialist care, did not change psychological morbidity compared to routine clinical review at 18 months. Scores for both groups on the breast cancer subscale improved over time, with lower scores at nine and 18 months compared to baseline. The adjusted mean differences between groups at 18 months was 0.7 points in favour of the SBCN intervention (P = 0.058). A second study showed no differences between groups for role and emotional functioning measured using cancer-specific quality of life questionnaires in a SBCN-led telephone intervention compared with standard hospital care, both with and without an educational group programme at 12 months. At 12 months, mean scores were 78.4 (SD = 16.2) and 77.7 (SD = 16.2) respectively for SBCN-led telephone and standard hospital follow-up. The 95% confidence interval difference at 12 months was -1.93 to 4.64. Three studies (1094 women, moderate-quality evidence) reported no between-group difference in anxiety between 12 and 60 months follow-up. One of these studies also measured depression and reported no difference in depression scores between groups at five years (anxiety: RR 1.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 5.1; depression: RR 1.7 95% CI 0.4 to 7.2). Four studies (1331 women, moderate-quality evidence) demonstrated high levels of satisfaction with SBCN-led follow-up care by telephone between 12 and 60 months. Psychosocial nursing interventions compared with usual care for women with advanced breast cancer One study (105 women, low-quality evidence) showed no difference in cancer-specific quality of life outcomes at 3 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that psychosocial interventions delivered by SBCNs for women with primary breast cancer may improve or are at least as effective as standard care and other supportive interventions, during diagnosis, treatment and survivorship. SBCN-led telephone follow-up interventions were equally as effective as standard care, for women with primary breast cancer.

Financial situation and challenges for management of SME hospitals: Evidence from Poland

The hospital represents a specific organisation, operating in a turbulent environment and financed to a large extent by public funds. The health sector is exposed to constant political and social pressure. This causes significant problems with maintaining its financial stability, which particularly affects hospitals in the SME sector. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between selected financial indicators and some environmental phenomena that affect the financial situation and future financial stability of a selected group of hospitals from the SME group. The results will also be compared to the situation of other SME entities. The research is based on descriptive analysis, descriptive statistics, and correlation analysis of selected data. The results indicate that the financial situation of hospitals belonging to the SME group differs significantly from the overall SME sector, and does not bode positively for their future development. The current financial situation presents particular challenges for managers in balancing financial streams and ensuring economic sustainability. At the same time, this situation should encourage decision-makers to ensure an adequate level of revenues for these public service providers, as well as face other challenges related to operational management.

Evaluating the Age-Based Recommendations for Long-Term Follow-Up in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

After 5 years of annual follow-up following breast cancer, Dutch guidelines are age based: annual follow-up for women <60 years, 60-75 years biennial, and none for >75 years. We determined how the risk of recurrence corresponds to these consensus-based recommendations and to the risk of primary breast cancer in the general screening population.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

Women with early-stage breast cancer in 2003/2005 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 18,568). Cumulative incidence functions were estimated for follow-up years 5-10 for locoregional recurrences (LRRs) and second primary tumors (SPs). Risks were compared with the screening population without history of breast cancer. Alternative cutoffs for age were determined by log-rank tests.

RESULTS

The cumulative risk for LRR/SP was lower in women <60 years (5.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3-6.6) who are under annual follow-up than for women 60-75 (6.3%, 95% CI 5.6-7.1) receiving biennial visits. All risks were higher than the 5-year risk of a primary tumor in the screening population (ranging from 1.4% to 1.9%). Age cutoffs <50, 50-69, and > 69 revealed better risk differentiation and would provide more risk-based schedules. Still, other factors, including systemic treatments, had an even greater impact on recurrence risks.

CONCLUSION

The current consensus-based recommendations use suboptimal age cutoffs. The proposed alternative cutoffs will lead to a more balanced risk-based follow-up and thereby more efficient allocation of resources. However, more factors should be taken into account for truly individualizing follow-up based on risk for recurrence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The current age-based recommendations for breast cancer follow-up after 5 years are suboptimal and do not reflect the actual risk of recurrent disease. This results in situations in which women with higher risks actually receive less follow-up than those with a lower risk of recurrence. Alternative cutoffs could be a start toward risk-based follow-up and thereby more efficient allocation of resources. However, age, or any single risk factor, is not able to capture the risk differences and therefore is not sufficient for determining follow-up. More risk factors should be taken into account for truly individualizing follow-up based on the risk for recurrence.

Breast cancer nursing interventions and clinical effectiveness: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of nurse-led interventions on the health-related quality of life, symptom burden and self-management/behavioural outcomes in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Embase databases were searched (January 1999 to May 2019) to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies of interventions delivered by nurses with oncology experience for women with breast cancer. Risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. Intervention effects were synthesised by cancer trajectory using The Omaha System Intervention Classification Scheme.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs (4651 participants) were included. All studies were at risk of bias mainly due to inherent limitations such as lack of blinding and self-report data. Most studies (71%; n=22) reported at least one superior intervention effect. There were no differences in all outcomes between those who receive nurse-led surveillance care versus those who received physical led or usual discharge care. Compared with control interventions, there were superior teaching, guidance and counselling (63%) and case management (100%) intervention effects on symptom burden during treatment and survivorship. Effects of these interventions on health-related quality of life and symptom self-management/behavioural outcomes were inconsistent.

DISCUSSION

There is consistent evidence from RCTs that nurse-led surveillance interventions are as safe and effective as physician-led care and strong evidence that nurse-led teaching, guidance and counselling and case management interventions are effective for symptom management. Future studies should ensure the incorporation of health-related quality of life and self-management/behavioural outcomes and consider well-designed attentional placebo controls to blind participants for self-report outcomes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020134914).

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care

BACKGROUND

Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Putting patients first: an inventive service delivering cancer treatment at home

Aim: This study evaluated the patient experience of receiving subcutaneous chemotherapy at home via a unique 'Cancer Treatment at Home' outreach service adapted by the UK Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust. Patients & methods: The service involved using highly trained nurses to deliver cancer treatments to patients in their own homes. Patient outcomes were monitored over 12 months via the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy at Home (SACT) survey using handheld electronic devices. Results: Of the 56 participating cancer patients, 53 provided responses. Patients received subcutaneous trastuzumab, denosumab, pembrolizumab, fulvestrant and goserelin. Overall, 96% of respondents were 'very satisfied' and 4% 'satisfied' with the service. All respondents would recommend the service to others. Conclusion: The 'Cancer Treatment at Home' service has improved the patient experience for cancer care and has been recognized nationally for its achievements.

Follow-up care after treatment for prostate cancer: evaluation of a supported self-management and remote surveillance programme

BACKGROUND

Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors' long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management.

METHODS

This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men's unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients.

CONCLUSION

The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models.

Sexual dysfunction in Spanish women with breast cancer

Purpose

To determine whether there are changes in sexuality after breast cancer, to better understand the sexual function of women with breast cancer, and to investigate the potential relationship between sexual dysfunction and socio-demographic and clinical variables.

Methods

A cross-sectional study. This study included 514 women with breast cancer between 21- and 66-years-old. The cases were gathered between June 2016 and January 2017. The instruments used were the questionnaire on Women’s Sexual Function and a questionnaire to collect socio-demographic and clinical data.

Results

The average age (± standard deviation, SD) of participants was 46.34 ± 8.28 years. Their average age at date of diagnosis was 42.26 ± 8.56 years, and the average time suffering from cancer was 4.05 ± 5.23 years. There were significant differences (p = 0.002) in the presence of sexual dysfunction before (32.1%) and after (91.2%) cancer. The primary sexual dysfunctions were due to penetration pain (50.6%), lubrication (50.6%), dysfunctional desire (44.6%), and dysfunctional excitement (44.6%). Two-thirds of participants were satisfied with their sexual relations. The women who presented most sexual dysfunction were those that had a bilateral mastectomy (p = 0.009) and those who received chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormonal-therapy (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sexual function was changed in women with breast cancer. The main problems included penetration pain, desire, lubrication, and dysfunctional excitement. It is important that Health professionals recognize which circumstances influence the sexual function of women with breast cancer and to make interventions that facilitate sexual adjustment.

Patient-initiated follow up affects fear of recurrence and healthcare use: a randomised trial in early-stage endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that patient-initiated follow up reduces the fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and healthcare use when compared with traditional hospital-based follow up.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial.

SETTING

Four Danish departments of gynaecology between May 2013 and May 2016.

POPULATION

One hundred and fifty-six women diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I low-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma.

METHODS

Women allocated to the control group attended hospital-based follow up consisting of regular outpatient visits for 3 years after primary treatment. Women in the intervention group were instructed in patient-initiated follow up, which included careful instruction in alarm symptoms and options for self-referral rather than a schedule of examinations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was FCR as measured by the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) after 10 months of follow up. Secondary end points included cancer-related use of primary and secondary health care during the first 10 months after treatment.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, FCR decreased significantly more in the control group from baseline to 10 months of follow up (difference -5.9, 95% CI -10.9 to -0.9). The majority of this improvement happened after only 3 months of follow up. Women receiving the intervention had fewer examinations at the department compared with the control group (0 versus 2 median visits, P < 0.01) and 58% of these examinations were scheduled because of vaginal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-based follow up alleviates FCR significantly more than patient-initiated follow up, though the estimated difference was small. Patient-initiated follow up is a feasible, potentially cost-reducing follow-up approach in a population of endometrial cancer survivors with low risk of recurrence. The decision to use patient-initiated follow up should balance these benefits and harms.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Patient-initiated follow up reduces healthcare use but maintains fear of recurrence in endometrial cancer.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Why and how was the study carried out? Follow up of women with endometrial cancer is resource consuming and previous research suggests that it is not effective. Even though the women benefit from reassurance at follow up, routine examinations may also remind the women of the disease and induce fear of cancer recurrence. Furthermore, routine follow up may delay recurrence diagnosis, because the women do not report their symptoms until the next scheduled visit. In the research explained in this article, patient-initiated follow up was evaluated as an alternative to traditional follow up. The women were randomly assigned to one of two follow-up programmes: regular gynaecological examinations at the department of gynaecology or self-referral with careful instruction in alarm symptoms, that is, patient-initiated follow up. The level of fear of cancer recurrence in the two groups was obtained by questionnaires. Information on healthcare use was obtained by questionnaires and a chart review. What were the main findings? Regular examinations at the department of gynaecology reduced the fear of cancer recurrence significantly more than patient-initiated follow up, though the difference was small. Women who were instructed in alarm symptoms, under self-referral, were able to monitor their symptoms, and this approach significantly reduced the number of examinations at the department of gynaecology. What are the limitations of the work? Participants in the self-referral group knew that they were examined less than other women, and this may have induced fear of cancer recurrence. Similarly, the regular completion of questionnaires regarding fear of cancer recurrence may have reminded the women of the disease and diminished the difference between the two groups. What are the implications for patients Patient-initiated follow up reduced healthcare use but maintained fear of cancer recurrence in women who had survived early-stage endometrial cancer. Future analyses on quality of life and cost-effectiveness are needed to balance the benefits and harms of patient-initiated follow up.

Women's Perceptions of Journeying Toward an Unknown Future With Breast Cancer: The "Lives at Risk Study"

Breast cancer risk classifications are useful for prognosis, yet little is known of their effect on patients. This study clarified women's understandings of risk as they "journeyed" through the health care system. Breast cancer patients and women undergoing genetic investigation were recruited ( N = 25) from a large UK Health Board, 2014-2015, completing a "Book of Experience," and Bio-photographic elicitation interviews. Stakeholder and Participant Feedback Forums were undertaken with key stakeholders, including patients, oncologists, funders, and policy developers, to inform team understanding. Thematic and visual frameworks from multidisciplinary analysis workshops uncovered two themes: "Subjective Understandings of Risk" and "Journeying Toward an Unknown Future." Breast cancer patients and women undergoing investigation experienced risk intuitively. Statistical formulations were often perplexing, diverting attention away from concrete life-and-death facts. Following risk classification, care must be co-defined to reduce patients' foreboding about an unknown future, taking into consideration personal risk management strategies and aspirations for a cancer-free future.

The prevalence of unmet needs in 625 women living beyond a diagnosis of early breast cancer

Background:

There are over half a million women with a previous breast cancer diagnosis living in the UK. It is important to establish their level of unmet physical and psychosocial needs, as many are not routinely seen for follow-up under current models of care.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of early breast cancer survivors entering an Open Access Follow-Up (OAFU) programme in 2015. Unmet needs were assessed using the Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) or extracted directly from the electronic patient record (EPR), when the HNA had not been completed.

Results:

Six hundred and twenty-five patients were eligible. Sixty-one per cent of the survivors had at least one unmet need and 18% had ⩾5 needs. Consistently higher levels of unmet needs were identified using the formal HNA checklist as opposed to extraction from EPR (P<0.001). Physical and emotional needs were the most frequently reported (55 and 24% respectively). Patients receiving endocrine therapy and those who had received chemotherapy were more likely to report unmet needs (both P<0.001).

Conclusions:

Unmet physical and emotional needs are common in breast cancer survivors. It is vital that the services are available for these patients as they transition from hospital-based follow-up to patient-led self-management models of care.

Open access follow-up care for early breast cancer: a randomised controlled quality of life analysis

This study evaluated the acceptability of a supportive model of follow‐up. One hundred and twelve women recovering from breast cancer were randomised to receive standard breast clinic aftercare (Control n = 56) or on demand by open access aftercare by breast care nurses (Intervention n = 56). Participants attended a support‐based psycho‐educational programme delivered in four half‐day group sessions. Three quality of life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ‐C30, QLQ‐BR23, HADS) were administered at baseline and 6‐monthly intervals for 2 years. Multilevel linear regression modelling methods were used for evaluation. Age was found to be a statistically significant predictor of quality of life in several sub‐scales. Increasing age was negatively associated with sexual functioning, systematic therapy side effects and physical functioning, and positively associated with future perspective. Aftercare assignment was not found to be a statistically significant predictor. Women treated for early breast cancer were not disadvantaged by allocation to the open access supportive care model in terms of quality of life experienced. The model for follow‐up was demonstrated to be a feasible alternative to routinised hospital‐based follow‐up and adds to the evidence for stratified follow‐up for low‐risk cancer patients, incorporating self‐management education. Stratified follow‐up pathways are viewed as a preferable approach.