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.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

Disparities in survival of stomach cancer among different socioeconomic groups in North-East Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Survival differences in stomach cancer are depended on patient, tumour and treatment factors. Some populations are more prone to develop stomach cancer, such as people with low socioeconomic status (SES). The aim of this population based study was to assess whether differences in socioeconomic status (SES) alone, after adjusting for confounding factors, also influence survival. METHODS: From 1989 to 2007 all patients with stomach cancer were selected from the cancer registry of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North-East. Postal code at diagnosis was used to determine SES, dividing patients in three groups; low, intermediate and high SES. Associations between age, localization, grade, stage, and treatment were determined using Chi-square analysis. Relative survival analysis was used to estimate relative excess risk (RER) of dying according to SES. RESULTS: In low SES neighbourhoods diagnosis was established at older age. More distal tumours were detected in patients with low SES, whereas pathology showed more poorly differentiated tumours in patients with high SES. Overall, more resections were performed in, and more chemotherapy was administrated to patients in high SES neighbourhoods. After adjusting for confounding factors, the risk of dying was lower for patients with high SES (RER 0.89, 95% Confidence Interval 0.81-0.98) compared to patients with low SES. CONCLUSION: SES proved to be an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with stomach cancer.