Follow-up care in breast cancer

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.

French women's representations and experiences of the post-treatment management of breast cancer and their perception of the general practitioner's role in follow-up care: A qualitative study

Background

In France, the Cancer Plan II 2009‐2013 was launched to improve post‐cancer management and promote greater involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in follow‐up care.

Objectives

We investigated how women experienced the post‐treatment management of breast cancer and perceived the role of the GP in follow‐up care.

Design

We conducted a qualitative study based on semi‐structured interviews with women with breast cancer in remission. The interviews were transcribed and analysed in accordance with the principles of thematic analysis.

Setting and participants

We interviewed 21 patients aged between 30 and 86. Eighteen breast cancer survivors were recruited from GP practices and five from a patients’ association.

Results

Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis: that breast cancer is a life‐changing event; how patients managed the effects of treatment; how patients viewed the future; and patients’ expectations of their GP.

Discussion and conclusion

French survivors of breast cancer perceived the physical changes caused by their illness to impact their womanhood, leading to difficulties with sexual relations, a diminished sense of self and fears for the future. They felt abandoned at the end of treatment and desired support. They appreciated the ease of contacting their GP but considered follow‐up care outside their remit. They agreed to be followed up by their GP, provided that they co‐operated closely with a cancer specialist. This is in accordance with the French Cancer Plan II 2009‐2013, which recommends greater involvement of GPs in a monitoring protocol shared with cancer specialists.

Patients' preferences for post-treatment breast cancer follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' preferences for follow-up in primary care vs. secondary care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with 70 female patients with a history of early-stage breast cancer. Using descriptive content analysis, interview transcripts were analysed independently and thematically by two researchers.

FINDINGS

Patients expressed the strongest preference for annual visits (31/68), a schedule with a decreasing frequency over time (27/68), and follow-up > 10 years, including lifelong follow-up (20/64). The majority (56/61) preferred to receive follow-up care from the same care provider over time, for reasons related to a personal doctor-patient relationship and the physician's knowledge of the patient's history. About 75% (43/56) preferred specialist follow-up to other follow-up models. However, primary care-based follow-up would be accepted by 57% (39/68) provided that there is good communication between GPs and specialists, and sufficient knowledge among GPs about follow-up. Perceived benefits of primary care-based follow-up referred to the personal nature of the GP-patient relationship and the easy access to primary care. Perceived barriers included limited oncology knowledge and skills, time available, motivation among GPs to provide follow-up care and patients' confidence with the present specialist follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of the patients were open to primary care-based follow-up. Patients' confidence with this follow-up model may increase by using survivorship care plans to facilitate communication across the primary/secondary interface and with patients. Training GPs to improve their oncology knowledge and skills might also increase patients' confidence.

Disease-specific and event-free survival in breast cancer patients: a hospital-based study between 1990 and 2001

BACKGROUND

In France, as in other countries, breast cancer care has changed due to therapeutic advances and organized screening programs. Can the effect of new therapeutic procedures over time be measured by health care institutions considering these changes? The present study used data from a hospital-based cancer registry to analyze changes in 5-year disease-specific and event-free survival among women with primary breast cancer over three time periods (1990-1993, 1994-1997, and 1998-2001).

METHODS

All cases of primary invasive breast carcinomas, initially treated in a French Comprehensive Cancer Center between 1990 and 2001, were included. In situ breast carcinoma and male breast cancer were excluded. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze disease-specific and event-free survival (DSS and EFS) rates over the three time periods (1990-1993, 1994-1997, and 1998-2001).

RESULTS

During the 1990-2001 period, 4,165 primary breast cancers were initially treated at the Comprehensive Cancer Center. Out of 1,012 deaths overall, 74.6% were due specifically to primary breast cancer (respectively 98% from cancer itself and 2% from treatment side effects); the cause was unknown for only 3.3% of deaths. Out of 3,810 complete remissions, 18.2% presented local, regional or metastatic relapse and 3.8% presented a second primary breast cancer. Comparison of DSS and EFS rates in a recent reporting period (1998-2001) with those in earlier time periods (1994-1997 and 1990-1993) indicated that substantial survival gains were achieved with respectively 88.4% (95% CI: 86.4-90.5), 83.2% (95% CI: 81.3-85.2), and 79.8% (95% CI: 77.4-82.2) (p<0.01) for 5-year Disease-Specific Survival, and respectively 78.3% (95% CI: 75.7-81.0), 73.9% (95% CI: 71.6-76.3), and 70.1% (95% CI: 67.4-72.8) (p<0.01) for 5-year Event-Free Survival. After adjustment for prognostic factors, period was identified as an independent predictor of survival.

CONCLUSION

Survival improvement is likely to be due to changes in routine clinical practice such as an increased use of systemic adjuvant therapy over the study periods, dose modification of epirubicin in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer since 1994, and organized screening programs since 1997. However the effect of possible early diagnosis and over-diagnosis biases due to screening cannot be assessed.

Primary gynecological neoplasms and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with breast carcinoma

The purpose of this study was to quantify and describe nonmammary neoplasms (n-MN), particularly gynecological neoplasms, in a patient population previously diagnosed with breast cancer. Data were collected prospectively in our institutional review board-approved registry for patients diagnosed with infiltrating breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. Patients who developed a second, n-MN were identified; neoplastic site, time to development after breast cancer, and clinical outcomes were recorded. FIGO stage was recorded for patients who developed a gynecological neoplasm. Synchronous bilateral breast cancer was defined as a second, contralateral diagnosis made within 12 months of the first and, similarly, synchronous n-MN were defined as those identified within 1 year of a breast cancer diagnosis. Outcome curves were generated using the method of Kaplan and Meier, and compared using the log-rank test. Of 4126 patients diagnosed with breast cancer, 3% developed a n-MN, the majority of which were nongynecological and asynchronous to the initial breast cancer diagnosis. Three percent of patients diagnosed with breast cancer were diagnosed with a second, n-MN. Among patients who developed a n-MN, most developed a nongynecological cancer more than 1 year after the initial breast cancer diagnosis, and their outcomes were significantly worse than those patients who did not develop a n-MN.

Meeting Highlights: International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2005

The ninth St Gallen (Switzerland) expert consensus meeting in January 2005 made a fundamental change in the algorithm for selection of adjuvant systemic therapy for early breast cancer. Rather than the earlier approach commencing with risk assessment, the Panel affirmed that the first consideration was endocrine responsiveness. Three categories were acknowledged: endocrine responsive, endocrine non-responsive and tumors of uncertain endocrine responsiveness. The three categories were further divided according to menopausal status. Only then did the Panel divide patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories. It agreed that axillary lymph node involvement did not automatically define high risk. Intermediate risk included both node-negative disease (if some features of the primary tumor indicated elevated risk) and patients with one to three involved lymph nodes without additional high-risk features such as HER 2/neu gene overexpression. The Panel recommended that patients be offered chemotherapy for endocrine non-responsive disease; endocrine therapy as the primary therapy for endocrine responsive disease, adding chemotherapy for some intermediate- and all high-risk groups in this category; and both chemotherapy and endocrine therapy for all patients in the uncertain endocrine response category except those in the low-risk group.