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.

Tumor Response After Neoadjuvant Magnetic Resonance Guided Single Ablative Dose Partial Breast Irradiation.

PURPOSE: To assess the pathologic and radiologic response in patients with low-risk breast cancer treated with magnetic resonance (MR) guided neoadjuvant partial breast irradiation (NA-PBI) and to evaluate toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: For this single-arm prospective trial, women with unifocal, non-lobular tumors with a maximum diameter of 20 mm (age, 50-70 years) or 30 mm (age, ≥70 years) and tumor-negative sentinel node(s) were eligible. Patients were treated with a single ablative dose of NA-PBI followed by breast-conserving surgery after an interval of 6 to 8 months. Target volumes were defined on radiation therapy planning computed tomography scan and additional magnetic resonance imaging. Prescribed doses to gross tumor volume and clinical target volume (gross tumor volume plus 20 mm margin) were 20 Gy and 15 Gy, respectively. Primary outcome was pathologic complete response (pCR). Secondary outcomes were radiologic response (on magnetic resonance imaging), toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), PROs (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-BR23, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and cosmesis (assessed by patient, radiation oncologist, and BCCT.core software). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were treated with NA-PBI, and pCR was reported in 15 patients (42%; 95% confidence interval, 26%-59%). Radiologic complete response was observed in 15 patients, 10 of whom had pCR (positive predictive value, 67%; 95% confidence interval, 39%-87%). After a median follow-up of 21 months (range, 12-41), all patients experienced grade 1 fibrosis in the treated breast volume. Transient grade 2 and 3 toxicity was observed in 31% and 3% of patients, respectively. Local recurrences were absent. No deterioration in PROs or cosmetic results was observed. CONCLUSIONS: NA-PBI has the potential to induce pCR in a substantial proportion of patients, with acceptable toxicity. This treatment seems a feasible alternative to standard postoperative irradiation and could even result in postponement or omission of surgery if pCR can be accurately predicted in selected low-risk patients.

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.