Patients' experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse). METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care. METHODS: We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations. RESULTS: In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10. CONCLUSION: Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Patient-Reported Symptoms of Late Toxicity in Patients With Breast Cancer Treated With Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy and the Association With Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the prevalence of patient-reported symptoms of local late toxicity in patients with irradiated breast cancer and determine the association between late toxicity and quality of life. METHODS: Within the prospective Utrecht cohort for Multiple BReast cancer intErvention studies and Long-term evaluation cohort, a survey on self-reported late toxicity was sent to all patients with breast cancer with ≥12 months interval since radiation therapy treated with curative intent. Patients were treated with hypofractionated radiation therapy of 40 Gy/15 fractions or 42.5 Gy/16 fractions, with or without a simultaneous integrated boost. Symptoms of late toxicity were evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. Late toxicity was defined as moderate-severe breast or chest wall pain combined with at least 1 other mild-severe late toxicity symptom, that is, breast or arm/hand lymphedema, firmness of the breast, or impaired arm movement. Physical, role, and social functioning were measured before, during, and after the late toxicity survey using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core questionnaire-C30 and compared with a Dutch normative population. RESULTS: In the study, 1613/2248 patients (72%) were included. Of those, 16% (n = 265) reported late toxicity. The median time interval between radiation therapy and survey was 38 months (interquartile range, 21-55). Moderate/severe firmness of the breast, chest wall pain, and breast pain were reported by, respectively, 18% (n = 295), 14% (n = 225), and 10% (n = 140) of all patients. Physical, role, and social functioning were below the clinical threshold (ie, clinically relevant impairment) in 13% to 52% of patients with late toxicity and 2% to 26% of patients without late toxicity. Patients with late toxicity significantly more often received analgesics, physiotherapy, and lymphedema therapy compared with patients without late toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into the prevalence of patient-reported late toxicity after hypofractionated radiation therapy and the influence of late toxicity on quality of life after breast cancer. These results may help health care professionals to inform their patients about long-term effects of breast cancer treatment including hypofractionated radiation therapy.

Assessing the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in breast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity (HONEY trial): a trial protocol using a trial within a cohort design.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment with radiotherapy can induce late radiation toxicity, characterized by pain, fibrosis, edema, impaired arm mobility, and poor cosmetic outcome. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been proposed as treatment for late radiation toxicity; however, high-level evidence of effectiveness is lacking. As HBOT is standard treatment and reimbursed by insurers, performing classic randomized controlled trials is difficult. The "Hyperbaric OxygeN therapy on brEast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity" (HONEY) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design. METHODS: The HONEY trial will be conducted within the Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation (UMBRELLA). Within UMBRELLA, breast cancer patients referred for radiotherapy to the University Medical Centre Utrecht are eligible for inclusion. Patients consent to collection of clinical data and patient-reported outcomes and provide broad consent for randomization into future intervention studies. Patients who meet the HONEY in- and exclusion criteria (participation ≥ 12 months in UMBRELLA, moderate/severe breast or chest wall pain, completed primary breast cancer treatment except hormonal treatment, no prior treatment with HBOT, no contraindications for HBOT, no clinical signs of metastatic or recurrent disease) will be randomized to HBOT or control group on a 2:1 ratio (n = 120). Patients in the control group will not be informed about participation in the trial. Patients in the intervention arm will undergo 30-40 HBOT treatment sessions in a high pressure chamber (2.4 atmospheres absolute) where they inhale 100% oxygen through a mask. Cohort outcome measures (i.e., physical outcomes, quality of life, fatigue, and cosmetic satisfaction) of the HBOT group will be compared to the control group at 3 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial within the UMBELLA cohort was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the TwiCs design. Use of the TwiCs design is expected to address issues encountered in classic randomized controlled trials, such as contamination (i.e., HBOT in the control group) and disappointment bias, and generate information about acceptability of HBOT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04193722 . Registered on 10 December 2019.

Patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction and the long-term association with quality of life in irradiated breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction in women treated with radiation therapy for breast cancer and to determine the association between dissatisfaction and quality of life (QoL) and depression. METHODS: Within the prospective UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort, all patients ≥ 1 year after breast conserving treatment or mastectomy with immediate reconstruction were selected. Self-reported cosmetic satisfaction was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. QoL, social functioning, and emotional functioning were measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 at 1, 2, and 3 years after inclusion. Mixed model analysis was performed to assess the difference in different domains of QoL between patients with good versus poor self-reported cosmetic satisfaction over time after adjustment for potential confounders. Depression scores were collected by means of the HADS-NL questionnaire. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to assess the difference in proportions of HADS score ≥ 8, indicating increased depression risk, between satisfied and dissatisfied patients. RESULTS: 808 patients were selected for analysis. Respectively one, two, and three years after surgery, 8% (63/808), 7% (45/626), and 8% (31/409) of patients were dissatisfied with their cosmetic outcome. Poor patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction was independently associated with impaired QoL, body image, and lower emotional and social functioning. Scores ≥ 8 on the HADS depression subscale were significantly more common in dissatisfied patients. CONCLUSIONS: Dissatisfaction with cosmetic outcome was low after breast cancer surgery followed by radiation therapy during 3 years follow-up. Knowing the association between dissatisfaction with cosmetic outcome and QoL and depression could help to improve the preoperative counseling of breast cancer patients.

Self-reported work ability in breast cancer survivors; a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-reported work ability of breast cancer patients, to compare scores with the Dutch general population, and to identify determinants of reduced work ability in breast cancer patients. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we identified 939 patients <67 years. Employed patients filled out the Work Ability Index (WAI) questionnaire before the start of radiotherapy treatment (baseline) and at 6, 18, and 30 months. Work ability was compared with a matched Dutch cancer-free population (n=3,641). The association between (clinical) characteristics and work ability over time was assessed using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: At baseline, 68% (n=641) of the respondents were employed and 64% (n=203) were employed at 30 months. Moderate or poor work ability was reported by 71% of patients at baseline, by 24% of the patients at 30 months and by 14% of the general population. Axillary lymph node dissection, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and locoregional radiotherapy were associated with reduced work ability. After 30 months, 18% of employed patients reported to have reduced their working hours, made substantial modifications to their work or were unable to work. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported work ability is strongly reduced during breast cancer treatment. Thirty months after treatment the proportion of women reporting poor or moderate work ability remains higher compared to the general population. Even though the proportion of women with paid employment is rather stable over time, substantial amendments in work are needed in 18% of patients. These findings emphasize the importance of informing patients on potential changes in work ability to allow shared decision making.

Subsequent abdominal surgery after laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh: a single institution experience with 72 reoperations.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) carries a risk of adhesion formation and can influence subsequent abdominal operations (SAOs). We performed a retrospective study of findings during reoperations of patients who had previously had an LVIHR by using an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh (DualMesh; WL Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA). METHODS: The medical records of all 695 patients who had LVIHR at our hospital were reviewed. Patients who underwent SAO for various indications were identified (n = 72) and analyzed. RESULTS: Seven LVIHR patients (1%) had early SAO (within a few days). In six patients (86%), removal of the mesh was required. Intra-operatively, in all six of these patients with peritonitis, there were no adhesions against the implant identified. Late SAOs (after more than 1 month) were performed in 65 patients (9.4%). Only one patient required acute surgical intervention due to an LVIHR-related adhesion (0.15%). Laparoscopy was performed in 83% and laparotomy in 17% of patients. Adhesions against the implant were present in 83% of patients; in 65%, the adhesions involved omentum only, and in 18%, they involved the bowel. Adhesiolysis was always easy and caused no inadvertent enterotomies. SAOs were devoid of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this largest series of reoperations after LVIHR, the majority of patients had mild or moderate adhesions against the implant. The specific observations that: (1) no relaparoscopies had to be converted, (2) no inadvertent enterotomies were made during adhesiolysis, and (3) SAOs have practically been devoid of peri- and postoperative complications indicate that SAOs can be safely performed after previous LVIHR with DualMesh.