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.

Clinical impact of molecular breast imaging as adjunct diagnostic modality in evaluation of indeterminate breast abnormalities and unresolved diagnostic concerns.

PURPOSE: Improvements in molecular breast imaging (MBI) have increased the use of MBI as adjunct diagnostic modality and alternative to MRI. We aimed to assess the value of MBI in patients with equivocal breast lesions on conventional imaging, especially in terms of its ability to rule out malignancy. METHODS: We selected patients who underwent MBI in addition to conventional diagnostics due to equivocal breast lesions between 2012 and 2015. All patients underwent digital mammography, target ultrasound and MBI. MBI was performed using a single-head Dilon 6800 gamma camera after administration of 600 MBq 99m Tc-sestamibi. Imaging was reported according to BI-RADS classification and compared with pathology or follow-up of ≥6 months. RESULTS: Of 226 women included, pathology was obtained in 106 (47%) and (pre)malignant lesions were found in 25 (11%). Median follow-up was 5.4 years (IQR 3.9-7.1). Sensitivity was higher for MBI compared to conventional diagnostics (84% vs. 32%; P = 0.002), identifying malignancy in 21 and 6 patients, respectively, but specificity did not differ (86% vs. 81%; P = 0.161). Positive and negative predictive value were 43% and 98% for MBI and 17% and 91% for conventional diagnostics. MBI was discordant with conventional diagnostics in 68 (30%) patients and correctly changed diagnosis in 46 (20%) patients, identifying 15 malignant lesions. In subgroups with nipple discharge ( N = 42) and BI-RADS 3 lesions ( N = 113) MBI detected 7 of 8 occult malignancies. CONCLUSION: MBI correctly adjusted treatment in 20% of patients with diagnostic concerns after conventional work-up, and could rule out malignancy with a high negative predictive value of 98%.

Ten-year follow-up of the observational RASTER study, prospective evaluation of the 70-gene signature in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, early breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited. METHODS: In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years. RESULTS: Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% [95% CI 87.7-100]) and without (95.5% [95% CI 87.1-100]) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8-95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5-97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5-100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients. REGISTRY: ISRCTN71917916.

Health care professionals overestimate the risk for locoregional recurrences after breast cancer treatment depending on their specialty.

PURPOSE: For the implementation of personalised surveillance, it is important to create more awareness among HCPs with regard to the risk for locoregional recurrences (LRRs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the current awareness and estimations of individual risks for LRRs after completion of primary treatment for breast cancer among health care professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands, without using any prediction tools. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed among 60 HCPs working in breast cancer care in seven Dutch hospitals and 25 general practitioners (GPs). The survey consisted of eleven realistic surgically treated breast cancer cases. HCPs were asked to estimate the 5-year risk for LRRs for each case, which was compared to the estimations by the INFLUENCE-nomogram using one-sample Wilcoxon tests. Differences in estimations between HCPs with different specialities were determined using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Dunn tests. RESULTS: HCPs tended to structurally overestimate the 5-year risk for LRR on each case. Average overestimations ranged from 4.8 to 26.1%. Groups of HCPs with varying specialities differed significantly in risk estimations. GPs tended to overestimate the risk for LRRs on average the most (15.0%) and medical oncologists had the lowest average overestimation (2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: It is important to create more awareness of the risk for LRRs, which is a pre-requisite for the implementation of personalised surveillance after breast cancer. Besides education for HCPs, the use of prediction models such as the INFLUENCE-nomogram can support in estimating an objective estimate of each individual patient's risk.

MRI-guided preoperative wire localization of nonpalpable breast lesions.

With the increasing use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the physician is more frequently confronted with nonpalpable breast lesions that are only visible on MRI. In these cases, it is often difficult to obtain adequate material for pathological examination. One of the methods that may be performed is excisional biopsy after MRI-guided wire localization. This study intends to examine the feasibility and added benefit of this method. It appears to be a reliable and useful tool that is, therefore, of additional benefit to surgical practice.