Machine learning with PROs in breast cancer surgery; caution: Collecting PROs at baseline is crucial.

As high breast cancer survival rates are achieved nowadays, irrespective of type of surgery performed, prediction of long-term physical, sexual, and psychosocial outcomes is very important in treatment decision-making. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help facilitate this shared decision-making. Given the significance of more personalized medicine and the growing trend on the application of machine learning techniques, we are striving to develop an algorithm using machine learning techniques to predict PROs in breast cancer patients treated with breast surgery. This short communication describes the bottlenecks in our attempt to predict PROs.

Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. RESULTS: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. CONCLUSION: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact.

Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Current follow-up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow-up to explore the potential for personalised care. METHODS: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow-up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included in the full-text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: "surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence-risk reduction by anti-hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer." There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti-hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow-up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved. CONCLUSION: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow-up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow-up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients.

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS).

INTRODUCTION: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020-0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.gov.