Internal Responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch Breast Cancer Patients during the First Year Post-Surgery: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

The EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) are commonly used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for breast cancer. This study assesses and compares the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch breast cancer patients during the first year post-surgery. Women diagnosed with breast cancer who completed the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 pre-operatively (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months post-surgery (T12) were included. Mean differences of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 between baseline and 6 months (delta 1) and between baseline and 12 months post-surgery (delta 2) were calculated and compared against the respective minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.08 and 5. Internal responsiveness was assessed using effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) for both deltas. In total, 333 breast cancer patients were included. Delta 1 and delta 2 for the EQ-5D-5L index and most scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were below the MCID. The internal responsiveness for both PROMs was small (ES and SRM < 0.5), with greater internal responsiveness for delta 1 compared to delta 2. The EQ-5D-5L index showed greater internal responsiveness than the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Quality of Life scale and summary score. These findings are valuable for the interpretation of both PROMs in Dutch breast cancer research and clinical care.

Let's talk about sex! Why should healthcare professionals address sexual distress in breast cancer patients and survivors?

PURPOSE: Sexual distress impacts the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients but is often overlooked in standard care pathways. This study evaluated the prevalence and factors of sexual distress among Dutch breast cancer patients, compared them to the general population, and explored how sexual distress is discussed in clinical settings from the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Questionnaires containing the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS) and demographic variables were distributed to women with breast cancer. The effect of breast cancer on sexual distress was assessed with a Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariable linear regression was used to analyze variables associated with FSDS. The Sexuality Attitudes and Beliefs Survey (SABS) was sent to HCPs. RESULTS: Breast cancer patients reported significantly higher sexual distress compared to a Dutch non-breast cancer cohort, respectively 16.38 (SD 11.81) and 23.35 (SD 11.39). Factors associated with higher sexual distress were psychological comorbidities, the body image scale, and being diagnosed >10 years ago. Sexual distress was not discussed as often as patients needed. Barriers to addressing sexual distress were time constraints, HCPs' confidence in their ability to address sexual distress, and uncertainty about who is responsible for initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer patients showed significantly higher sexual distress compared to the Dutch population. However, it was not frequently addressed in the consultation room. While some barriers have been identified, this study highlights the importance of further exploring obstacles to integrating discussions about sexual distress into routine care to improve QoL of breast cancer patients.

Health utility values of breast cancer treatments and the impact of varying quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness.

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust.

Outcomes Associated With Intracranial Aneurysm Treatments Reported as Safe, Effective, or Durable: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Testing new medical devices or procedures in terms of safety, effectiveness, and durability should follow the strictest methodological rigor before implementation. Objectives: To review and analyze studies investigating devices and procedures used in intracranial aneurysm (IA) treatment for methods and completeness of reporting and to compare the results of studies with positive, uncertain, and negative conclusions. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were searched for studies on IA treatment published between January 1, 1995, and the October 1, 2022. Grey literature was retrieved from Google Scholar. Study Selection: All studies making any kind of claims of safety, effectiveness, or durability in the field of IA treatment were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Using a predefined data dictionary and analysis plan, variables ranging from patient and aneurysm characteristics to the results of treatment were extracted, as were details pertaining to study methods and completeness of reporting. Extraction was performed by 10 independent reviewers. A blinded academic neuro-linguist without involvement in IA research evaluated the conclusion of each study as either positive, uncertain, or negative. The study followed Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of domain-specific outcomes between studies with positive, uncertain, or negative conclusions regarding safety, effectiveness, or durability were compared. The number of studies that provided a definition of safety, effectiveness, or durability and the incidence of incomplete reporting of domain-specific outcomes were evaluated. Results: Overall, 12 954 studies were screened, and 1356 studies were included, comprising a total of 410 993 treated patients. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with poor outcome or in-hospital mortality between studies claiming a technique was safe, uncertain, or not safe. Similarly, there was no difference in the proportion of IAs completely occluded at last follow-up between studies claiming a technique was effective, uncertain, or noneffective. Less than 2% of studies provided any definition of safety, effectiveness, or durability, and only 1 of the 1356 studies provided a threshold under which the technique would be considered unsafe. Incomplete reporting was found in 546 reports (40%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of IA treatment literature, studies claiming safety, effectiveness, or durability of IA treatment had methodological flaws and incomplete reporting of relevant outcomes supporting these claims.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes after reconstructive surgery for head and neck cancer: A systematic review.

Current literature on reconstruction after head and neck cancer (HNC) focusses on short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs), while there is a need for knowledge on long-term consequences. Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched for studies on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after HNC reconstruction, using validated PROMs in at least 50 patients, and a follow-up of more than 1 year. Thirty studies were included, comprising 2358 patients with a follow-up between one and 10 years. The most used questionnaire was the UW-QoL v4. Reconstructive surgery was generally followed by diminished oral function, worsened by radiotherapy. Patients experienced anxiety and fear of cancer recurrence. However, there was a progressive decrease in pain over time with some flaps having more favorable HRQoL outcomes. Age and bony tumor involvement were not related to postoperative HRQoL. These results may lead to better patient counseling and expectation management of HNC patients.