The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)effectiveness of personalised follow-up. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01-01-2010 and 10-10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. RESULTS: Overall, 3708 publications were identified, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation effect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. CONCLUSION: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the in-hospital diagnostic pathway of breast and colorectal cancer in the Netherlands: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a temporary halt of population screening for cancer and limited hospital capacity for non-COVID care. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on the in-hospital diagnostic pathway of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: 71,159 BC and 48,900 CRC patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients, diagnosed between January 2020 and July 2021, were divided into six periods and compared to the average of patients diagnosed in the same periods in 2017-2019. Diagnostic procedures performed were analysed using logistic regression. Lead time of the diagnostic pathway was analysed using Cox regression. Analyses were stratified for cancer type and corrected for age, sex (only CRC), stage and region. RESULTS: For BC, less mammograms were performed during the first recovery period in 2020. More PET-CTs were performed during the first peak, first recovery and third peak period. For CRC, less ultrasounds and more CT scans and MRIs were performed during the first peak. Lead time decreased the most during the first peak by 2 days (BC) and 8 days (CRC). Significantly fewer patients, mainly in lower stages, were diagnosed with BC (-47%) and CRC (-36%) during the first peak. CONCLUSION: Significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was found on the diagnostic pathway, mainly during the first peak. In 2021, care returned to the same standards as before the pandemic. Long-term effects on patient outcomes are not known yet and will be the subject of future research.

Continuity of care for patients with de novo metastatic cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based observational study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic recommendations were made to adapt cancer care. This population-based study aimed to investigate possible differences between the treatment of patients with metastatic cancer before and during the pandemic by comparing the initial treatments in five COVID-19 periods (weeks 1-12 2020: pre-COVID-19, weeks 12-20 2020: 1st peak, weeks 21-41 2020: recovery, weeks 42-53 2020: 2nd peak, weeks 1-20 2021: prolonged 2nd peak) with reference data from 2017 to 2019. The proportion of patients receiving different treatment modalities (chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy, radiotherapy primary tumor, resection primary tumor, resection metastases) within 6 weeks of diagnosis and the time between diagnosis and first treatment were compared by period. In total, 74,208 patients were included. Overall, patients were more likely to receive treatments in the COVID-19 periods than in previous years. This mainly holds for hormone therapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy and resection of metastases. Lower odds were observed for resection of the primary tumor during the recovery period (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.99) and for radiotherapy on the primary tumor during the prolonged 2nd peak (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.98). The time from diagnosis to the start of first treatment was shorter, mainly during the 1st peak (average 5 days, p < .001). These findings show that during the first 1.5 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were only minor changes in the initial treatment of metastatic cancer. Remarkably, time from diagnosis to first treatment was shorter. Overall, the results suggest continuity of care for patients with metastatic cancer during the pandemic.

Managed Clinical Network for esophageal cancer enables reduction of variation between hospitals trends in treatment strategies, lead time, and 2-year survival.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence-based guidelines, variation in esophageal cancer care exists in daily practice. Many oncology networks deployed regional agreements to standardize the patient care pathway and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to explore the trends in variation of esophageal cancer care between participating hospitals of the Managed Clinical Network (MCN) in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation on treatment strategies, lead time to start of treatment, and 2-year survival, were calculated and compared between five clusters of hospitals within the network. RESULTS: A total of 1763 patients, diagnosed in 17 hospitals, were included. 71% of all patients received treatment with a curative intent, which ranged from 69% to 77% between the clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016. Although variation in treatment modalities between the clusters was observed in 2012-2014, no significant variation existed in 2015-2016, except for patients receiving no treatment at all. The 2-year overall survival of patients receiving treatment with a curative intent did not vary significantly between the clusters of hospitals (range: 56%-63%). Nevertheless, the median lead time before patients started treatment with a curative intent varied between clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016 (range: 34-47 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Limited variation in esophageal cancer treatment between clusters of hospitals in the MCN existed. This study shows that oncology networks can promote standardization of cancer care and reduce variation between hospitals through insight into variation.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Population-based Study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care services worldwide. In the Netherlands, the first confirmed COVID-19 infection was on February 27, 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Colorectal cancer patients who were diagnosed in 25 hospitals in weeks 2 to 26 of the year 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and divided in 4 periods. The average number of patients treated per type of initial treatment was analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age. Median time between diagnosis and treatment and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann Whitney test. Percentages of (acute) resection, stoma and (neo)adjuvant therapy were compared using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: In total, 1,653 patients were included. The patient population changed during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding higher stage and more clinical presentation with ileus at time of diagnosis. Slight changes were found regarding type of initial treatment. Median time between diagnosis and treatment decreased on average by 4.5 days during the pandemic. The proportion of colon cancer patients receiving a stoma significantly increased with 6.5% during the pandemic. No differences were found in resection rate and treatment with (neo)adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Despite the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health care, the impact on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands was limited.

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.

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional and health systems outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pathways are frequently used to improve care for cancer patients. However, there is little evidence about the effects of pathways used in oncological care. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to identify and synthesize existing literature on the effects of pathways in oncological care. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with cancer in primary and secondary/tertiary care whose treatment can be characterized as the strategy "care pathways" are included in this review. A systematic search in seven databases was conducted to gather evidence. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Study outcomes regarding patients, professionals, and system level were extracted from each study. RESULTS: Out of 13,847 search results, we selected 158 articles eligible for full text assessment. One hundred fifty studies were excluded and the remaining eight studies represented 4786 patients. Most studies were conducted in secondary/tertiary care. Length of stay (LOS) was the most common used indicator, and was reported in five studies. Meta-analysis based on subgroups showed an overall shorter LOS regarding gastric cancer (weighted mean difference (WMD)): - 2.75, CI: - 4.67 to - 0.83) and gynecological cancer (WMD: - 1.58, CI: - 2.10 to - 1.05). Costs were reported in six studies and most studies reported lower costs for pathway groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the differences between the included studies, we were able to present an evidence base for cancer care pathways performed in secondary/tertiary care regarding the positive effects of LOS in favor of cancer care pathways. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017057592.

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings. METHODS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Following the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017057592 .

Long-term effects of a regional care pathway for patients with rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Introducing care pathways is seen as a method to realise patient-focussed care conform evidence-based guidelines. The goal of this study is to determine the long-term effects of a regional care pathway for patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on almost 400 patients with rectal carcinoma from three hospitals were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Results on seven structure and process indicators were analysed and compared before and at two time points after implementing a regional care pathway over a total period from 2007 to 2012. To determine motivation and interpret the results, relevant professionals of the participating hospitals were interviewed. RESULTS: After implementing the care pathway, the performance of computed tomography (CT) scans in the diagnostic phase significantly improved (p = 0.007/0.07). The number of patients discussed in the preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting improved significantly (p = <0.001), and after implementing the care pathway, 94% of the patients were discussed. Further, a significant reduction in time between the first tumour biopsy and the MDT meeting was realised (p = 0.01). Professionals stated that the regional care pathway has led to more clarity about the patient route and more awareness about complying with evidence-based guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The regional care pathway provided a solid basis for uniforming care, working according evidence-based guidelines and further cooperation on regional level. For mainly the waiting and throughput times, the guidelines and norms had probably a stronger effect on the results than the care pathway.