DIEAP Flap Breast Reconstruction Followed by Local Recurrence of Breast Cancer

Local recurrence after an autologous breast reconstruction is uncommon. We describe 2 patients with local recurrence 3 and 9 years, respectively, after mastectomy with DIEAP (deep inferior epigastric artery perforator) flap breast reconstruction. Patients generally present with a palpable mass, pain, or other visible abnormalities. Various imaging techniques are helpful, always completed by biopsy to characterize the tumour. A repeated sentinel node procedure can be useful in staging. The treatment of the local recurrence needs to be determined in a multidisciplinary team consultation

Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors:Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND: Regular follow-up after treatment for breast cancer is crucial to detect potential recurrences and second contralateral breast cancer in an early stage. However, information about follow-up patterns in the Netherlands is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Details concerning diagnostic procedures and policlinic visits in the first 5 years following a breast cancer diagnosis were gathered between 2009 and 2019 for 9916 patients from 4 large Dutch hospitals. This information was used to analyze the adherence of breast cancer surveillance to guidelines in the Netherlands. Multivariable logistic regression was used to relate the average number of a patient’s imaging procedures to their demographics, tumor–treatment characteristics, and individual locoregional recurrence risk (LRR), estimated by a risk-prediction tool, called INFLUENCE. RESULTS: The average number of policlinic contacts per patient decreased from 4.4 in the first to 2.0 in the fifth follow-up year. In each of the 5 follow-up years, the share of patients without imaging procedures was relatively high, ranging between 31.4% and 33.6%. Observed guidelines deviations were highly significant (P < .001). A higher age, lower UICC stage, and having undergone radio- or chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher chance of receiving an imaging procedure. The estimated average LRR-risk was 3.5% in patients without any follow-up imaging compared with 2.3% in patients with the recommended number of 5 imagings. CONCLUSION: Compared to guidelines, more policlinic visits were made, although at inadequate intervals, and fewer imaging procedures were performed. The frequency of imaging procedures did not correlate with the patients’ individual risk profiles for LRR

Needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors regarding outcome-based shared decision-making about personalised post-treatment surveillance

Purpose: In this study, we explored how patients experience current information provision and decision-making about post-treatment surveillance after breast cancer. Furthermore, we assessed patients’ perspectives regarding less intensive surveillance in case of a low risk of recurrence. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 women in the post-treatment surveillance trajectory in seven Dutch teaching hospitals. Results: Although the majority of participants indicated a desire for shared decision-making (SDM) about post-treatment surveillance, participants experienced no SDM. Information provision was often suboptimal and unstructured. Participants were open for using risk information in decision-making, but hesitant towards less intensive surveillance. Perceived advantages of less intensive surveillance were: less distressing moments, leaving the patient role behind, and lower burden. Disadvantages were: fewer moments for reassurance, fear of missing recurrences, and a higher threshold for aftercare for side effects. Conclusions: SDM about post-treatment surveillance is desirable. Although women are hesitant about less intensive surveillance, they are open to the use of personalised risk assessment for recurrences in decision-making about surveillance. Implications for Cancer Survivors: To facilitate SDM about post-treatment surveillance, the timing and content of information provision should be improved. Risk information should be provided in an accessible and understandable way. Moreover, fear of cancer recurrence and other personal considerations should be addressed in the process of SDM

Ten-year conditional recurrence risks and overall and relative survival for breast cancer patients in the Netherlands: Taking account of event-free years

Background: Survival estimates from diagnosis are of limited importance for (ex-)breast cancer patients who survived several years, as it includes information on already deceased patients. This study analysed the 10-year conditional risk of recurrent breast cancer in specific prognostic subgroups. Second, we investigated 10-year conditional overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS), adjusted for confounding. Patients and methods: All women diagnosed in 2005 with operated T1-2N0-1 breast cancer were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were classified into T1N0, T1N1, T2N0 and T2N1 stage. Ten-year conditional recurrence rates were calculated from diagnosis, and for patients without an event (local [LR], regional recurrence [RR], distant metastasis [DM] or death) every year following diagnosis. Ten-year conditional OS was calculated using multivariable Cox regression. RS was estimated by dividing patient survival rates by those of the general Dutch population. Results: We included 7969 patients: 52.3% had T1N0, 15.3% T1N1, 19.9% T2N0 and 12.5% T2N1 stage. For T1N0, 10-year LR rates changed from 4.6% at diagnosis to 0.5% in year 10. RR rates changed from 2.3% to 0.2%, and DM rates changed from 7.8% to 0.6%. For T2N1 stage, the LR, RR and DM rates changed from 6.2% to 0.8%, 5.2%–0.4% and 19.6%–1.5%, respectively. For the luminal A subtype, LR, RR and DM rates changed from 3.9% to 0.4%, 1.7%–0.5% and 7.3%–1.1%, while for triple negative, these rates changed from 5.6% to 0.7%, 4.9%–0.2% and 16.7%–0%, respectively. Differences between subgroups attenuated over time, and all recurrence rates became ≤1.5% in year 10. Ten-year OS and RS, adjusted for confounding, showed declining risk differences between subgroups over time. Conclusion: Differences in recurrence rates, OS and RS between prognostic subgroups declined as years passed by. These results highlight the importance of taking into account disease-free years to more accurately predict (ex-)breast cancer patients’ prognosis over time

Different statistical techniques dealing with confounding in observational research: measuring the effect of breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy on survival

Purpose: Propensity trimming, hierarchical modelling and instrumental variable (IV) analysis are statistical techniques dealing with confounding, cluster-related variation or confounding by severity. This study aimed to explain (dis)advantages of these techniques in estimating the effect of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy on 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). Methods: All women diagnosed in 2005 with primary T1-2N0-1 breast cancer treated with BCT or mastectomy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We used multivariable Cox regression to correct for confounding. Propensity trimming was used to create a more homogeneous population for which the treatment choice was not self-evident. Hospital of surgery was used as hierarchical level to handle hospital-related variation, and as IV to deal with unmeasured confounding. Results: Multivariable Cox regression showed higher 10-year DMFS for BCT than mastectomy [HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–82)]. Propensity trimming on the 10–90th and the 20–80th percentile of the propensity score distribution and hierarchical modelling showed similar HRs. IV analysis showed no significant difference between BCT and mastectomy. Conclusion: Unmeasured confounding is very difficult to eliminate in observational research. We cannot conclude that BCT or mastectomy has a causal relationship with 10-year DMFS. It is crucial to critically evaluate all model’s assumptions, and to be careful in drawing firm conclusions

Validation of the online prediction model CancerMath in the Dutch breast cancer population

Purpose CancerMath predicts the expected benefit of adjuvant systemic therapy on overall (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Here, CancerMath was validated in Dutch breast cancer patients. Methods All operated women diagnosed with stage I–III primary invasive breast cancer in 2005 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Calibration was assessed by comparing 5- and 10-year predicted and observed OS/BCSS using χ2 tests. A difference > 3% was considered as clinically relevant. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curves. Results Altogether, 8032 women were included. CancerMath underestimated 5- and 10-year OS by 2.2% and 1.9%, respectively. AUCs of 5- and 10-year OS were both 0.77. Divergence between predicted and observed OS was most pronounced in grade II, patients without positive nodes, tumours 1.01–2.00 cm, hormonal receptor positive disease and patients 60–69 years. CancerMath underestimated 5- and 10-year BCSS by 0.5% and 0.6%, respectively. AUCs were 0.78 and 0.73, respectively. No significant difference was found in any subgroup. Conclusion CancerMath predicts OS accurately for most patients with early breast cancer although outcomes should be interpreted with care in some subgroups. BCSS is predicted accurately in all subgroups. Therefore, CancerMath can reliably be used in (Dutch) clinical practice

Comprehensive trends in incidence, treatment, survival and mortality of first primary invasive breast cancer stratified by age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017

Our study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of trends in incidence, survival, mortality and treatment of first primary invasive breast cancer (BC), according to age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Data from all women diagnosed with first primary stage I to IV BC (N = 320 249) were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. BC mortality and general population data were retrieved from Statistics Netherlands. Age-standardised incidence and mortality rates were calculated with annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) statistics. The relative survival (RS) was used as estimator for disease-specific survival. The BC incidence for all BC patients combined significantly increased until 2013 from 126 to 158 per 100 000 person-years, after which a declining trend was observed. Surgery became less extensive, but (neo-)adjuvant systemic treatments and their combinations were given more frequently. The RS improved for all age groups and for most stages and receptor subtypes, but remained stable for all subtypes since 2012 to 2013 and since 2000 to 2009 for Stage IV BC at 15 years of follow-up. Overall, the 5- and 10-year RS increased from 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.1, 77.4) and 55.9% (95% CI: 54.7, 57.1) in 1989 to 1999 to 91.0% (95% CI: 90.5, 91.5) and 82.9% (95% CI: 82.2, 83.5), respectively, in 2010 to 2016. BC mortality improved regardless of age and overall decreased from 57 to 35 per 100 000 person-years between 1989 and 2017. In conclusion, the BC incidence in the Netherlands has steadily increased since 1989, but the latest trends show promising declines. Survival improved markedly for most patients and the mortality decreased regardless of age.</p

Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: Breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients

This large population-based study compared breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCT) with mastectomy on (long-term) breast cancer-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS), and investigated the influence of several prognostic factors. Patients with primary T1-2N0-2M0 breast cancer, diagnosed between 1999 and 2012, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We investigated the 1999–2005 (long-term outcome) and the 2006–2012 cohort (contemporary adjuvant systemic therapy). Cause of death was derived from the Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Multivariable analyses, per time cohort, were performed in T1-2N0-2, and separately in T1-2N0-1 and T1-2N2 stages. The T1-2N0-1 stages were further stratified for age, hormonal receptor and HER2 status, adjuvant systemic therapy and comorbidity. In total, 129,692 patients were included. In the 1999–2005 cohort, better BCSS and OS for BCT than mastectomy was seen in all subgroups, except in patients 50 years, not treated with chemotherapy and with comorbidity. Both treatments led to similar BCSS in patients <50 years, without comorbidity and those treated with chemotherapy. Although confounding by severity and residual confounding cannot be excluded, this study showed better long-term BCSS for BCT than mastectomy. Even with more contemporary diagnostics and therapies we identified several subgroups that may benefit from BCT. Our results support the hypothesis that BCT might be preferred in most breast cancer patients when both treatments are suitable

Follow-up after breast cancer: Variations, best practices, and opportunities for improvement according to health care professionals

Objective: Follow-up after breast cancer can be divided into surveillance and aftercare. It remains unclear how follow-up can ideally be organised from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs). The aim of this study was to gain insight in the organisation of follow-up in seven Dutch teaching hospitals and to identify best practices and opportunities for improvement of breast cancer (all stages) follow-up as proposed by HCPs. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth group interviews were performed, one in each of the participating hospitals, with in total 16 HCPs and 2 patient advocates. To describe the organisation of follow-up, transcripts were analysed using a deductive approach. Best practices and opportunities were derived using an inductive approach. Results: Variation was found in the organisation of aftercare, especially in timing, frequency, and disciplines of involved HCPs. Less variation was observed for surveillance, which was guided by the national guideline. Best practices focused on case management and adequate collaboration between HCPs of different disciplines. Mentioned opportunities were improving the structured monitoring of patients' needs and a comprehensive guideline for organisation and content of aftercare. Conclusions: Variation in follow-up existed between hospitals. Shared decision-making (SDM) about surveillance is desirable to ensure that surveillance matches the patient needs, preferences, and personal risk for recurrences