Physical and mental health of breast cancer patients and survivors before and during successive SARS-CoV-2-infection waves.

PURPOSE: During the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave, a deterioration in emotional well-being and increased need for mental health care were observed among patients treated or being treated for breast cancer. In this follow-up study, we assessed patient-reported quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave in a large, representative cohort. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. To assess patient-reported QoL, physical functioning and psychosocial well-being, COVID-19-specific surveys were completed by patients during the first and second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves (April and November 2020, respectively). An identical survey was completed by a comparable reference population during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves. All surveys included the validated EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, HADS and "De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness" questionnaires. Pre-COVID-19 EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and HADS outcomes were available from UMBRELLA. Response rates were 69.3% (n = 1106/1595) during the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave and 50.9% (n = 822/1614) during the second wave. A total of 696 patients responded during both SARS-CoV-2-infection waves and were included in the analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave to PROs during the first wave. Moreover, PROs reported by all patients during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave (n = 822) were compared to PROs of a similar non-cancer reference population (n = 241) and to their pre-COVID-19 PROs. RESULTS: Patient-reported QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer remained stable or improved from the first to the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. The proportion of emotional loneliness reduced from 37.6 to 29.9% of patients. Compared to a similar non-cancer reference population, physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning, future perspectives and symptoms of dyspnea and insomnia were worse in patients treated or being treated for breast cancer during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. PROs in the second wave were similar to pre-COVID-19 PROs. CONCLUSION: Although patients scored overall worse than individuals without breast cancer, QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being did not deteriorate between the first and second wave. During the second wave, PROs were similar to pre-COVID-19 values. Overall, current findings are cautiously reassuring for future mental health of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision in individuals (being) treated for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision among patients (being) treated for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Longitudinal study within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA cohort of patients (being) treated for breast cancer. All cohort participants enrolled in UMBRELLA between October 2013 and November 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., April 2020 and November 2020, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 1106 (69.3%) and 822 (50.9%) cohort participants completed the survey in the first and second wave, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing that their treatment or follow-up care was affected due to COVID-19 decreased from 28.4% (n = 198) in April 2020 to 14.8% (n = 103) in November 2020. Throughout the pandemic, one or more hospital consultations were postponed in 10.0% (n = 82) of all patients and changed into a teleconsultation in 23.1% (n = 190). The proportion of patients who experienced a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner due to COVID-19 decreased from 29.9% (n = 204) in the first wave to 20.8% (n = 145) in the second wave. In-person consultations remained most preferred in 35.2% (n = 289) of all patients. Nearly half of all patients (48.3%, n = 396) indicated that telehealth would be a useful alternative for in-person consultations in future. CONCLUSION: Perceived access to health care has improved substantially throughout the pandemic. Digital care is well received by patients (being) treated for breast cancer.

(Ex-)breast cancer patients with (pre-existing) symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with (perceived) access to health care among (ex-)breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional study within a large prospective, multicenter cohort of (ex-)breast cancer patients, i.e., UMBRELLA. All participants enrolled in the UMBRELLA cohort between October 2013 and April 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 1051 (66.0%) participants completed the survey. During COVID-19, 284 (27.0%) participants reported clinically relevant increased levels of anxiety and/or depression, i.e., total HADS score ≥ 12. Participants with anxiety and/or depression reported statistically significant higher barriers to contact their general practitioner (47.5% vs. 25.0%, resp.) and breast cancer physicians (26.8% vs. 11.2%, resp.) compared to participants without these symptoms. In addition, a higher proportion of participants with anxiety and/or depression reported that their current treatment or (after)care was affected by COVID-19 compared to those without these symptoms (32.7% vs. 20.5%, resp.). Factors independently associated with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 were pre-existent anxiety (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.1-9.2) or depression (OR 6.0, 95% CI 3.5-10.2). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, (ex-)breast cancer patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers. Also, they more often report that their health care was affected by COVID-19. Risk factors for anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 are pre-existent symptoms of anxiety or depression. Extra attention-including mental health support-is needed for this group.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (officially declared on the March 11, 2020), and the resulting measures, are impacting daily life and medical management of breast cancer patients and survivors. We evaluated to what extent these changes have affected quality of life, physical, and psychosocial well-being of patients previously or currently being treated for breast cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted within a prospective, multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients and survivors (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion). Shortly after the implementation of COVID-19 measures, an extra survey was sent to 1595 participants, including the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C30) and breast cancer-specific (BR23) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with the most recent PROs collected within UMBRELLA pre-COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on PROs was assessed using mixed model analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: 1051 patients and survivors (65.9%) completed the survey; 31.1% (n = 327) reported a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistically significant deterioration in emotional functioning was observed (mean = 82.6 [SD = 18.7] to 77.9 [SD = 17.3]; P < .001), and 505 (48.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.0% to 51.1%) patients and survivors reported moderate to severe loneliness. Small improvements were observed in quality of life and physical, social, and role functioning. In the subgroup of 51 patients under active treatment, social functioning strongly deteriorated (77.3 [95% CI = 69.4 to 85.2] to 61.3 [95% CI = 52.6 to 70.1]; P = .002). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer patients and survivors were less likely to contact physicians and experienced a deterioration in their emotional functioning. Patients undergoing active treatment reported a substantial drop in social functioning. One in 2 reported loneliness that was moderate or severe. Online interventions supporting mental health and social interaction are needed during times of social distancing and lockdowns.

Impact of modern-day axillary treatment on patient reported arm morbidity and physical functioning in breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To reduce arm morbidity, routine axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is often omitted or replaced by axillary radiotherapy (AxRT) in patients with limited nodal involvement. We evaluated patient-reported arm morbidity and physical functioning in breast cancer patients undergoing modern-day axillary treatment. METHODS: All patients within the UMBRELLA cohort undergoing local radiotherapy with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), ALND and/or AxRT were selected. Patient-reported arm morbidity and physical functioning were assessed with EORTC QLQ C30/BR23 questionnaires up to eighteen months after initiation of radiotherapy. Patient-reported outcomes were compared between patients with SLNB only, ALND only, AxRT (level I-II), AxRT (level I-IV) or AxRT plus ALND by means of mixed model analysis. RESULTS: In total, 949 patients were identified; 641 (68%) SLNB only, 57 (6%) ALND only, 94 (10%) AxRT level I-II, 72 (8%) AxRT level I-IV and 85 (9%) ALND + AxRT. SLNB only resulted in the least arm morbidity scores. ALND + AxRT resulted in most arm morbidity, with clinically relevant differences at 18 months. AxRT (level I-II or level I-IV) resulted in significantly less arm symptoms in the first 3 months compared to ALND. Arm symptom scores between those receiving AxRT on levels I-II and I-IV were similar. CONCLUSION: Of all axillary management strategies, ALND plus AxRT is associated with worst patient-reported outcomes. AxRT resulted in less arm morbidity compared to ALND. Selective radiotherapy treatment of the axilla, i.e. radiotherapy of levels I-II only instead of levels I-IV, did not lead to clinically relevant reduced arm morbidity.

Axillary reverse mapping in axillary surgery for breast cancer: an update of the current status.

Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a technique by which the lymphatic drainage of the upper extremity that traverses the axillary region can be differentiated from the lymphatic drainage of the breast during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Adding this procedure to ALND may reduce upper extremity lymphedema by preserving upper extremity drainage. This review of the current literature on the ARM procedure discusses the feasibility, safety and relevance of this technique. A PubMed literature search was performed until 12 August 2015. A total of 31 studies were included in this review. The studies indicated that the ARM procedure adequately identifies the upper extremity lymph nodes and lymphatics in the axillary basin using blue dye or fluorescence. Preservation of ARM lymph nodes and corresponding lymphatics was proven to be oncologically safe in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with metastatic lymph node involvement in the sentinel lymph node (SLN) who are advised to undergo a completion ALND. The ARM procedure is technically feasible with a high visualisation rate using blue dye or fluorescence. ALND combined with ARM can be regarded as a promising surgical refinement in order to reduce the incidence of upper extremity lymphedema in selected groups of patients.

Laparoscopic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernias: the differences must be acknowledged: a prospective cohort analysis of 1,088 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of the outcome after laparoscopic repair (LR) of ventral hernias presented in the literature often is based on pooled data of primary ventral hernias (PVH) and incisional ventral hernias (IVH). This prospective cohort study was performed to investigate whether this pooling of data is justified. METHODS: The data of 1,088 consecutive patients who underwent LR of PVH or IVH were prospectively collected and reviewed for baseline characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative complications classified as Clavien grade 3 or higher. RESULTS: The PVH group consisted of 662 patients, and the IVH group comprised 426 patients. The mean Association of American Anesthesiologists classification was higher in IVH group (1.92 vs 1.68; P ≤ 0.001), as was rate of conversion to open surgery (7 vs 0.5 %; P < 0.001). The IVH group required more adhesiolysis (76 vs 0.9 %; P < 0.001), a longer procedure (73 vs 42 min; P < 0.001), and a longer hospital stay (4.53 vs 2.43 days; P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was higher in the IVH group (5.81 vs 1.37 %; P < 0.001), as was total complication rate (18.69 vs 4.55 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed significant differences in baseline characteristics and operative findings between patients undergoing PVH repair and those undergoing IVH repair. Continued pooling of data on LR of IVH and PVH combined, commonly found in the current literature, seems incorrect.

Impact of the number of tacks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: do more tacks cause more pain?

BACKGROUND: The main source of postoperative pain after laparoscopic repair of ventral hernia is thought to be fixation of implanted mesh. This study aimed to analyze whether a relation exists between the number of tacks used for fixation and postoperative pain. METHODS: To reduce the number of prognostic variables, only patients with primary umbilical hernia who underwent laparoscopic repair with double-crown mesh fixation were enrolled in this study. Two groups differing only in the manner of tacking were compared. Group 1 (n = 40), collected from previous studies, showed no specific efforts to minimize the number of tacks. Group 2 was a cohort of 40 new patients who underwent double-crown fixation using the minimal number of tacks considered to provide adequate mesh fixation. To eliminate systematic and random errors, the study analyzed only for postoperative pain. The severity of the patients' pain was assessed preoperatively and then 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100. RESULTS: The mean number of tacks used differed significantly between the two groups: group 1 (45.4 ± 9.6) vs group 2 (20.4 ± 1.4) (p = 0.001). Postoperative pain differed significantly only at the 3-month postoperative assessment: group 1 VAS (5.78) vs group 2 VAS (1.80) (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Although postoperative pain differed significantly at the 3-month follow-up assessment, both VAS scores were so low that from a clinical point of view, this difference seems irrelevant. Fewer tacks do not create less pain, nor do more tacks create more pain. This absence of a correlation between the number of tacks used and postoperative pain may indicate that pain after laparoscopic repair of at least small ventral hernias possibly is generated according to some "threshold" principle rather than according to a cumulative effect created by more points of fixation.

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis after intra-abdominally placed synthetic mesh for ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: We present a unique experience with a patient who had undergone continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) after laparoscopic repair of ventral incisional hernia (LRVIH) with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) mesh (DualMesh(®); WL Gore) and who later suffered from multiple episodes of CAPD-related peritonitis without any signs of mesh infection. METHODS: A 48-year-old man with an open abdominal aortic reconstruction in 1994 for occlusive arterial disease presented with an incisional ventral hernia. He underwent LRVIH using an e-PTFE mesh of 30×20 cm. RESULTS: Postoperatively, he developed renal failure. For various reasons, the only therapeutic option was CAPD. A CAPD-catheter was implanted via laparoscopy, taking care not to compromise the mesh that was completely covered with neoperitoneum. After 3 months of uneventful CAPD, he developed a bacterial peritonitis. Antibiotic treatment failed and the CAPD-catheter was removed. The mesh was left in place and the patient recovered. Later on another CAPD-catheter was implanted via laparoscopy and used for 10 months. Again he developed peritonitis from which he recovered after catheter removal. Mesh was left in place and remained uninfected, probably protected from intra-abdominal bacteria by the neoperitoneum. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of secondary infection of an intra-abdominal mesh seems to diminish largely after neoperitonealization of the mesh. CAPD seems possible in a patient with an intra-abdominal mesh when it is covered with neoperitoneum.

[Complications of laparoscopic correction of abdominal wall and incisional hernias]. / Complicaties na laparoscopische correctie van buikwand- en littekenbreuken.

AIM: To give an overview of all negative outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study METHODS: Data from all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair from January 2000 - May 2010 were summarized in a database. All operative and postoperative complications requiring invasive surgical or radiological intervention were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients underwent laparoscopy for hernia repair. Conversion to an open operation (n=24; 3%) was needed in 15 cases due to severe adhesions and in 9 due to enterotomy. Laparoscopic repair was completed in 779 patients (97%). Mean follow-up was 35.6 months (SD: 20.3). There were 17 recurrences (2.2%). Other adverse events were: enterotomies (n = 14; 1.8%: 9 recognized intraoperatively and 5 presented postoperatively); postoperative death due to myocardial infarction (n = 1); death due to mesenteric ischemia (n = 1); intra-abdominal bleeding (n = 3); postoperative ileus (n = 2); ileus long after laparoscopy (n = 2); chronic pain (n = 12; 1.6%); trocar-site hernia (n = 7); late mesh infection (n = 5); symptomatic mesh bulging (n = 4); chronic seroma (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic correction is an effective method of treating hernias of the abdominal wall and recurrence is low. A total of 8.9% of patients had complications requiring re-intervention. Of these only a quarter were recurrences. On its own, the percentage of recurrences is therefore an inadequate indicator of the outcomes of this operation.

Bulging of the mesh after laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence, diagnosis, clinical significance, and treatment strategies for bulging in the area of laparoscopic repair of ventral hernia that is caused by mesh protrusion through the hernia opening, but with intact peripheral fixation of the mesh and actually a still sufficient repair. METHODS: Medical records of all 765 patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair were reviewed, and all patients with a swelling in the repaired area were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were identified. They all underwent a computed tomography assessment. Seventeen patients (2.2% of the total group) had a hernia recurrence; in an additional 12 patients (1.6%), radiologic examinations indicated only bulging of the mesh but no recurrence. Bulging was associated with pain in 4 patients who underwent relaparoscopy and got a new, larger mesh tightly stretched over the entire previous repair. Eight asymptomatic patients decided on "watchful waiting." All patients remained symptom free during a median follow-up of 22 months. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic bulging, though not a recurrence, requires a new repair and must be considered as an important negative outcome of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. In asymptomatic patients, "watchful waiting" seems justified.

Computed tomographic measurements of mesh shrinkage after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh.

BACKGROUND: The potential for shrinkage of intraperitoneally implanted meshes for laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia (LRVIH) remains a concern. Numerous experimental studies on this issue reported very inconsistent results. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) mesh has the unique property of being revealed by computed tomography (CT). We therefore conducted an analysis of CT findings in patients who had previously undergone LRVIH with an ePTFE mesh (DualMesh, WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) in order to evaluate the shrinkage of implanted meshes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 656 LRVIH patients with DualMesh, all patients who subsequently underwent CT scanning were identified and only those with precisely known transverse diameter of implanted mesh and with CT scans made more than 3 months postoperatively were selected (n = 40). Two radiologists who were blinded to the size of the implanted mesh measured in consensus the maximal transverse diameter of the meshes by using the AquariusNET program (TeraRecon Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA). Mesh shrinkage was defined as the relative loss of transverse diameter as compared with the original transverse diameter of the mesh. RESULTS: The mean time from LRVIH to CT scan was 17.9 months (range 3-59 months). The mean shrinkage of the mesh was 7.5% (range 0-23.7%). For 11 patients (28%) there was no shrinkage at all. Shrinkage of 1-10% was found in 16 patients (40%), of 10-20% in 10 patients (25%), and of 20-24% in 3 patients (7.5%). No correlation was found regarding the elapsed time between LRVIH and CT, and shrinkage. There were two recurrences, one possibly related to shrinkage. CONCLUSION: Our observations indicate that shrinkage of DualMesh is remarkably lower than has been reported in experimental studies (8-51%). This study is the first to address the problem of shrinkage after intraperitoneal implantation of synthetic mesh in a clinical material.

Recurrences after laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia: lessons learned from 505 repairs.

BACKGROUND: All hernia recurrences in a series of 505 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of a ventral hernia (n=291) or incisional hernia (n=214) were analyzed to identify factors responsible for the recurrence. METHODS: In all laparoscopic repairs, an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis overlapping the hernia margins by >or=3 cm was fixed with a double ring of tacks alone (n=206) or with tacks as well as sutures (n=299). During the mean follow-up time of 31.3 +/- 18.4 months, nine patients (1.8%) had a recurrence, eight of which were repaired laparoscopically. Operative reports and videotapes of all initial repairs and repairs of recurrences were analyzed. RESULTS: All recurrences followed an incisional hernia repair (p<0.001). Five recurrences developed after mesh fixation with both tacks and sutures and four after mesh fixation with tacks alone (p=1.0). All recurrences were at the site of the apparently sufficient original incision scar: in eight patients, the recurrent hernia was attached to the mesh; in one, it developed in another part of the scar. All initial repairs had been performed without technical errors. Upon repair of the recurrences, a new, larger mesh was placed over the entire incision, not just the hernia. There were no re-recurrences during follow-up (mean 19.8+/-10.3 months). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after incisional hernia repair appears to be due primarily to disregard for the principle that the whole incision--not just the hernia--must be repaired. Our experience supports the idea that the entire incision has a potential for hernia development. Insufficient coverage of the incision scar is a risk factor for recurrence after laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia.

Timing of surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of timing of surgical intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. DESIGN: Retrospective study of 53 patients and a systematic review. SETTING: A tertiary referral center. Main Outcome Measure Mortality. RESULTS: Median timing of the intervention was 28 days. Eighty-three percent of patients had infected necrosis and 55% had preoperative organ failure. The mortality rate was 36%. Sixteen patients were operated on within 14 days of initial admission, 11 patients from day 15 to 29, and 26 patients on day 30 or later. This latter group received preoperative antibiotics for a longer period (P < .001), and Candida species and antibiotic-resistant organisms were more often cultured from the pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis in these patients (P = .02). The 30-day group also had the lowest mortality (8% vs 75% in the 1 to 14-days group and 45% in the 15 to 29-days group, P < .001); this difference persisted when outcome was stratified for preoperative organ failure. During the second half of the study, necrosectomy was further postponed (43 vs 20 days, P = .06) and mortality decreased (22% vs 47%, P = .09). We also reviewed 11 studies with a total of 1136 patients. Median surgical patient volume was 8.3 patients per year (range, 5.3-15.6), median timing of surgical intervention was 26 days (range, 3-31), and median mortality was 25% (range, 6%-56%). We observed a significant correlation between timing of intervention and mortality (R = - 0.603; 95% confidence interval, - 2.10 to - 0.02; P = .05). CONCLUSION: Postponing necrosectomy until 30 days after initial hospital admission is associated with decreased mortality, prolonged use of antibiotics, and increased incidence of Candida species and antibiotic-resistant organisms.