Treatments for breast cancer in men: late effects and impact on quality of life.

PURPOSE: Male breast cancer accounts for approximately 1% of all breast cancer diagnoses. Unfortunately, a lack of information exists regarding late effects of breast cancer treatment in men. METHODS: An online survey directed towards male breast cancer patients was distributed via social medial and emails from June to July 2022. Participants were asked about their disease characteristics, treatments and side effects from the disease or treatment. Patients and treatment variables were reported via descriptive statistics. Univariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between different treatment variables and outcomes expressed by odds ratio. RESULTS: A total of 127 responses were analyzed. Median age of the participants was 64 years (range 56-71 years). A total of 91 participants (71.7%) revealed they experienced late effects secondary to their cancer or cancer treatment. The most concerning physical and psychological symptoms reported were fatigue and fear of recurrence respectively. Axillary lymph node dissection was associated with swollen arm and with difficulty in arm or shoulder movement. Systemic chemotherapy was related to bothersome hair loss and changes on interest in sex; and endocrine therapy was associated with feeling less masculine. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that men suffer several late effects from treatments for breast cancer. Lymphedema, difficulty with arm and shoulder movement, sexual dysfunction and hair loss should be discussed with males as it can be distressing for some patients and decrease their quality of life.

Identifying and describing cancer survivors: Implications for cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Gathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross-sectional studies. METHODS: Using publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross-sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self-reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The authors identified 14 national cross-sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?" Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included. CONCLUSIONS: There is no standard method for assessing self-reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross-sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

Characterizing experiences of non-medical switching to trastuzumab biosimilars using data from internet-based surveys with US-based oncologists and breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To characterize current experiences with communication and decision-making practices when non-medical switching to a biosimilar trastuzumab is proposed or required by cancer center or insurer. METHODS: We developed and launched 60- and 51-item internet surveys to elicit US breast cancer patient and medical oncologist lived experiences with trastuzumab biosimilars and patient information needs and seeking practices. We recruited participants using social media and administered via REDCap in 2020-2021. RESULTS: 143 breast cancer patients and 33 medical oncologists completed the surveys. 63.9% patients reported having switched to a trastuzumab biosimilar and 40.8% reported receiving no prior notification about switching. 44% of patients reported learning about biosimilars primarily through self-directed learning and 41% wanting more time to discuss with oncologist. None of the oncologists reported that the decision to switch a patient to a biosimilar was initiated by them, but rather more frequently by the insurer (45.2%). About 54.8% reported not receiving any pharmaceutical manufacturer material related to the selected biosimilar. Patients and oncologists diverged in their responses to items regarding patient opportunities to ask questions, adequacy of resources, effectiveness of treatment, patient worry, and magnitude of change. CONCLUSION: There is a need for tailored and effective patient and oncologist information and education on trastuzumab biosimilars, along with improved healthcare communication regarding switching. The discrepancy between patient-reported experiences and oncologist perceptions of the patient experience, suggests a lack of adequate information that may be a challenge not only to the uptake of trastuzumab biosimilars, but to the patient-oncologist relationship.

Higher risk tumor features are not associated with higher nodal stage in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Studies support omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with sentinel node-positive disease, with ALND recommended for patients who present with clinically positive nodes. Here, we evaluate patient and tumor characteristics and pathologic nodal stage of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) breast cancer who undergo ALND to determine if differences exist based on nodal presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2010 to 2019 defined three groups of patients with ER + breast cancer who underwent ALND for positive nodes: SLN + (positive node identified at SLN biopsy), cNUS (abnormal preoperative US and biopsy), and cNpalp (palpable adenopathy). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or presented with axillary recurrence were excluded. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 94 were SLN + , 40 were cNUS, and 57 were cNpalp. Patients with SLN + compared with cNpalp were younger (56 vs 64 years, p < 0.01), more often pre-menopausal (41% vs 14%, p < 0.01), and White (65% vs 39%, p = 0.01) with more tumors that were low-grade (36% vs 8%, p < 0.01). Rates of PR + (p = 0.16), levels of Ki67 expression (p = 0.07) and LVI (p = 0.06) did not differ significantly among groups. Of patients with SLN + disease, 64% had pN1 disease compared to 38% of cNUS (p = 0.1) and 40% of cNpalp (p = 0.01). On univariable analysis, tumor size (p = 0.01) and histology (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with pN1 disease, with size remaining an independent predictor on multivariable analysis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Historically, higher risk features have been attributed to patients with clinically positive nodes precluding omission of ALND, but when restricting evaluation to patients with ER + breast cancer, only tumor size is associated with higher nodal stage.

Male Breast Cancer Patient and Surgeon Experience: The Male WhySurg Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the experience of the male breast cancer patient. Mastectomy is often offered despite evidence that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides similar outcomes. METHODS: Two concurrent online surveys were distributed from August to October 2020 via social media to male breast cancer (MBC) patients and by email to American Society of Breast Surgeon members. The MBC patients were asked their opinions about their surgery, and the surgeons were asked to provide surgical recommendations for MBC patients. RESULTS: The survey involved 63 MBC patients with a mean age of 62 years (range, 31-79 years). Five MBC patients (7.9 %) stated that their surgeon recommended BCS, but 54 (85.7 %) of the patients underwent unilateral, and 8 (12.7 %) underwent bilateral mastectomy. Most of the patients (n = 60, 96.8 %) had no reconstruction. One third of the patients (n = 21, 33.3 %) felt somewhat or very uncomfortable with their appearance after surgery. The response rate was 16.5 % for the surgeons. Of the 438 surgeons who answered the survey, 298 (73.3 %) were female, 215 (51.7 %) were fellowship-trained, and 244 (58.9 %) had been practicing for 16 years or longer. More than half of surgeons (n = 259, 59.1 %) routinely offered BCS to eligible men, and 180 (41.3 %) stated they had performed BCS on a man with breast cancer. Whereas 89 (20.8 %) of the surgeons stated that they routinely offer reconstruction to MBC patients, 87 (20.3 %) said they do not offer reconstruction, 96 (22.4 %) said they offer it only if the patient requests it, and 157 (36.6 %) said they never consider it as an option. CONCLUSIONS: The study found discordance between MBC patients' satisfaction with their surgery and surgeon recommendations and experience. These data present an opportunity to optimize the MBC patient experience.

Webinar as an Informational Resource on Trastuzumab Biosimilars: Planning, Promotion, Execution, and Evaluation.

Despite the incorporation of trastuzumab biosimilars (to treat HER2-positive breast cancer) in clinical practice guidelines, gaps remain such as patient and clinician education. We hosted a webinar comprised of a panel of biosimilars experts, oncologists, pharmacist, infusion nurse, and a patient advocate. The outcomes of the webinar include audience responses to pre- and post-webinar questionnaires, educational benefits, real-time opportunities to ask questions, and a recording. Education needs to be tailored to the needs of both, patients and clinicians.

"Going Flat" After Mastectomy: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: The Going Flat movement aims to increase awareness and acceptance of mastectomy alone as a viable option for patients. Little is known about motivations and satisfaction with surgical outcomes in this population. METHODS: An online survey was administered to 931 women who had a history of uni- or bilateral mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer or elevated breast cancer risk without current breast mound reconstruction. Satisfaction with outcome and surgeon support for the patient experience were characterized using 5-level scaled scores. RESULTS: Mastectomy alone was the first choice for 73.7% of the respondents. The top two reasons for going flat were desire for a faster recovery and avoidance of a foreign body placement. Overall, the mean scaled satisfaction score was 3.72 ± 1.17 out of 5. In the multivariable analysis, low level of surgeon support for the decision to go flat was the strongest predictor of a satisfaction score lower than 3 (odds ratio [OR], 3.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59-5.72; p < 0.001). Dissatisfaction also was more likely among respondents reporting a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.76-4.27; p < 0.001) and those undergoing a unilateral procedure (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.29-3.09; p = 0.002). Greater satisfaction was associated with receiving adequate information about surgical options (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.32-0.69; p < 0.0001) and having a surgeon with a specialized breast surgery practice (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergoing mastectomy alone are satisfied with their surgical outcome. Surgeons may optimize patient experience by recognizing and supporting a patient's decision to go flat.

Assessing the Burden of Nodal Disease for Breast Cancer Patients with Clinically Positive Nodes: Hope for More Limited Axillary Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is accepted for patients with one or two positive sentinel nodes, and studies are focusing on clinically node-positive patients who have been downstaged with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Evidence is lacking for patients with positive nodes who undergo surgery upfront. These patients are assumed to have a higher burden of nodal disease such that ALND remains the standard of care. METHODS: Patients who underwent ALND for breast cancer between 2010 and 2019 at the authors' institution were retrospectively identified. Those with clinical N1 disease were included in the study. Patients who received NAC and those who had surgery for sentinel node positive disease or axillary recurrence were excluded. Clinical and pathologic factors associated with nodal stage were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 111 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 61.3% had a palpable node on exam, and 41.4% ultimately had pN1 disease. Most of the tumors were estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (91.5%), and 21.7% of the tumors were invasive lobular cancers. Lobular histology, tumor size, and metastasis size were associated with higher nodal stage. In the multivariable analysis, the patients with nodal metastasis larger than 10 mm had significantly lower odds of having pN1 disease (odds ratio 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.69; p = 0.02). In a subset analysis of patients with palpable nodes, tumor size and histology remained significantly associated with nodal stage. CONCLUSION: More than 40% of breast cancer patients with clinically positive nodes had minimal nodal disease (pN1) at surgery. Additionally, palpable nodes on exam did not predict higher nodal stage. A subset of patients with clinically positive nodes may be identified who can potentially be spared the morbidity of ALND.

A comparison of two non-radioactive alternatives to wire for the localization of non-palpable breast cancers.

PURPOSE: Multiple wire-free technologies for localization of non-palpable breast cancers have emerged as satisfactory alternatives to wire. However, no study has compared two non-radioactive wire-free approaches to one another. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among LOCalizer™ radiofrequency identification (RFID), SAVI Scout® (SAVI), and wire localization (WL). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of patients undergoing lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer at a single institution between August 2017 and February 2019. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on localization technique: RFID, SAVI or WL. Operative times and average tumor volumes were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Positive margin and re-excision rates were compared with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Among 104 patients who underwent lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer, 33 patients (31.7%) had RFID, 21 (20.2%) had SAVI, and 50 (48.0%) had WL. Operative times were 79 min for RFID, 81 min for SAVI, and 78 min for WL (p = 0.91). Volume of tissue resected was 36.3 cm3, 31.7 cm3, and 35.3 cm3 for RFID, SAVI, and WL, respectively (p = 0.84). Positive margin rates (RFID 3.0% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 8.0%, p = 0.67) and re-excision rates (RFID 6.1% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 10.0%, p = 0.82) were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Wire-free localization technologies have been compared to WL demonstrating similar efficacy. Our study suggests that RFID and SAVI Scout also perform similarly to one another. Physicians and institutions may consider more nuanced features of each localization system rather than performance alone when choosing a wire-free alternative.

National Trends in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: An Analysis of Implant-Based Versus Autologous Reconstruction After Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Many factors affect access to immediate breast reconstruction (IR) after mastectomy. The present study was performed to assess trends, outcomes, and predictors of IR techniques using a nationally representative cohort. METHODS: The 2009-2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to identify adult women who underwent inpatient mastectomy with IR. Patients were compared by type of reconstruction: implant-based IR versus autologous reconstruction (AR). AR was classified as a microsurgical or pedicled flap procedure. Incidence, outcomes, and predictors were assessed using Chi squared univariate tests and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 194,073 women who underwent IR, 136,668 (70.4%) received implant-based IR and 57,405 (29.6%) received AR. Of those who underwent AR procedures, 31,336 (54.6%) received microsurgical flaps and 26,680 (46.5%) received pedicled flaps. Utilization of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps increased significantly (28.6-42.5% of AR, P < 0.001). Predictors of AR were Black race [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.46, P < 0.001], lower Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (AOR = 1.25, P < 0.001), private insurance (AOR = 1.07, P = 0.030), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 (AOR = 1.38, P < 0.001), urban teaching hospital designation (AOR = 1.77, P < 0.001), and high hospital volume (AOR = 3.11, P < 0.001). Similar factors were associated with the use of microsurgical flaps. AR and microsurgical flaps were associated with higher rates of acute inpatient complications, resource utilization and length of stay (LOS) compared with implant-based IR and pedicled flaps, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implant-based IR remains the most common type of IR, although rates of microsurgical AR are on the rise. Follow-up of complications, costs, and quality-of-life measures may show that AR provides long-term high-value care despite upfront morbidity, cost, and use of hospital resources.

Microchipping the breast: an effective new technology for localizing non-palpable breast lesions for surgery.

PURPOSE: Use of a wire to localize a non-palpable breast lesion for surgery is standard but archaic. We sought to evaluate a new radiofrequency localization system (RFLS) as an effective, non-radioactive alternative to the wire. METHODS: Patients who required surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion were consented for the study. Patients underwent localization with a radiofrequency Tag and surgical removal guided by the handheld LOCalizer probe. The primary study endpoint was successful placement and retrieval of the Tag, and secondary endpoints included marker migration; days prior to surgery of Tag insertion; patient, radiologist, and surgeon experience; distance of Tag from skin; and positive margin and re-excision rates for cancer. RESULTS: Fifty patients had successful placement and retrieval of the radiofrequency Tag. Likert questionnaire data revealed that most patients thought the procedure went smoothly and was easier than expected. Radiologists and surgeons thought that the Tag was as reliable as the wire. Of the 33 patients who had surgery for in situ or invasive cancer, one had a positive margin on final pathology (3%) and two underwent re-excision (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this pilot study suggest that the RFLS is an effective localization system for non-palpable breast lesions intended for surgical removal. Unlike most other technologies, the LOCalizer probe detects distance from the Tag, and this unique feature may have contributed to the low positive margin rate seen in this study. The RFLS appears to offer advantages over current localization procedures and should be explored as an alternative to wire. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03202472.

Predictors associated with MRI surveillance screening in women with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer but without a genetic predisposition for future contralateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: For women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC), no validated mechanisms exist to calculate future contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. The Manchester risk stratification guidelines were developed to evaluate CBC risk in women with a PHBC, primarily for surgical decision making. This tool may be informative for the use of MRI screening, as CBC risk is an assumed consideration for high-risk surveillance. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-two women with a PHBC were treated with unilateral surgery within our multidisciplinary breast clinic. We calculated lifetime CBC risk using the Manchester tool, which incorporates age at diagnosis, family history, genetic mutation status, estrogen receptor positivity, and endocrine therapy use. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (UVA/MVA) were performed, evaluating whether CBC risk predicted MRI surveillance. RESULTS: For women with invasive disease undergoing MRI surveillance, 66% had low, 23% above-average, and 11% moderate/high risk for CBC. On MVA, previous mammography-occult breast cancer [odds ratio (OR) 18.95, p < 0.0001], endocrine therapy use (OR 3.89, p = 0.009), dense breast tissue (OR 3.69, p = 0.0007), mastectomy versus lumpectomy (OR 3.12, p = 0.0041), and CBC risk (OR 3.17 for every 10% increase, p = 0.0002) were associated with MRI surveillance. No pathologic factors increasing ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence were significant on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBC risk predicted MRI surveillance, 89% with invasive disease undergoing MRI had <20% calculated CBC risk. Concerns related to future breast cancer detectability (dense breasts and/or previous mammography-occult disease) predominate decision making. Pathologic factors important for determining ipsilateral recurrence risk, aside from age, were not associated with MRI surveillance.

Tweeting the Meeting: Twitter Use at The American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meeting 2013-2016.

BACKGROUND: Twitter social media is being used to disseminate medical meeting information. Meeting attendees and other interested parties have the ability to follow and participate in conversations related to meeting content. We analyzed Twitter activity generated from the 2013-2016 American Society of Breast Surgeons Annual Meetings. METHODS: The Symplur Signals database was used to determine number of tweets, tweets per user, and impressions for each meeting. The number of unique physicians, patients/caregivers/advocates, and industry participants was determined. Physician tweeters were cross-referenced with membership and attendance rosters. Tweet transcripts were analyzed for content and tweets were categorized as either scientific, social, administrative, industry promotion, or irrelevant. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2016, the number of tweets increased by 600 %, the number of Twitter users increased by 450 %, and the number of physician tweeters increased by 457 %. The number of impressions (tweets × followers) increased from more than 3.5 million to almost 20.5 million, an increase of 469 %. The majority of tweets were informative (70-80 %); social tweets ranged from 13 to 23 %. A small percentage (3-6 %) of tweets were related to administrative matters. There were very few industry or irrelevant tweets. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter social media use at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting showed a substantial increase during the time period evaluated. The use of Twitter during professional meetings is a tremendous opportunity to share information. The authors feel that medical conference organizers should encourage Twitter participation and should be educating attendees on the proper use of Twitter.

What Do Patients Prefer? Understanding Patient Perspectives on Receiving a New Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is variability in physician practice regarding delivery method and timeliness of test results to cancer patients. Our aim was to survey patients to determine if there was a difference between actual and preferred care for disclosure of test results. METHODS: A de-identified survey was distributed to online cancer support groups to query patients about their experience regarding communication of cancer testing and timeliness. Analyses of the differences between actual and preferred communication and wait times were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 1000 patients completed the survey. The analysis herein was restricted to 784 breast cancer survivors. Survey responders were predominately White (non-Hispanic; 89 %), college educated (78 %), and media 'savvy' (online medical media usage; 97 %). Differences between actual and preferred care were identified for the domains of mode of communication and wait times for initial breast cancer diagnostic biopsies and other tests. A total of 309 (39 %) of 784 patients received face-to-face communication for a new cancer diagnosis, with 394 (50 %) patients preferring this option (p < 0.0001). In addition, 315 (40 %) of 784 patients received their cancer biopsy result within 2 days, with 646 (82 %) patients preferring this option (p < 0.0001). Differences were also identified between actual and preferred care for multiple other test types. CONCLUSIONS: Actual care for timeliness and modes of communication did not reflect patient-desired care. National and local initiatives to improve performance are needed. As a first step, we recommend that each patient be queried about their preference for mode of communication and timeliness, and efforts made to comply.

Twitter Social Media is an Effective Tool for Breast Cancer Patient Education and Support: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite reported benefits, many women do not attend breast cancer support groups. Abundant online resources for support exist, but information regarding the effectiveness of participation is lacking. We report the results of a Twitter breast cancer support community participant survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine the effectiveness of social media as a tool for breast cancer patient education and decreasing anxiety. METHODS: The Breast Cancer Social Media Twitter support community (#BCSM) began in July 2011. Institutional review board approval with a waiver of informed consent was obtained for a deidentified survey that was posted for 2 weeks on Twitter and on the #BCSM blog and Facebook page. RESULTS: There were 206 respondents to the survey. In all, 92.7% (191/206) were female. Respondents reported increased knowledge about breast cancer in the following domains: overall knowledge (80.9%, 153/189), survivorship (85.7%, 162/189), metastatic breast cancer (79.4%, 150/189), cancer types and biology (70.9%, 134/189), clinical trials and research (66.1%, 125/189), treatment options (55.6%, 105/189), breast imaging (56.6%, 107/189), genetic testing and risk assessment (53.9%, 102/189), and radiotherapy (43.4%, 82/189). Participation led 31.2% (59/189) to seek a second opinion or bring additional information to the attention of their treatment team and 71.9% (136/189) reported plans to increase their outreach and advocacy efforts as a result of participation. Levels of reported anxiety before and after participation were analyzed: 29 of 43 (67%) patients who initially reported "high or extreme" anxiety reported "low or no" anxiety after participation (P<.001). Also, no patients initially reporting low or no anxiety before participation reported an increase to high or extreme anxiety after participation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that breast cancer patients' perceived knowledge increases and their anxiety decreases by participation in a Twitter social media support group.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey.

PURPOSE: Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort. METHODS: We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.