Breast cancer patients' needs and perspectives on a one-on-one peer support program: quantitative and qualitative analyses.

PURPOSE: Although peer support programs as a health resource have become increasingly popular, only limited studies evaluated the added value of one-on-one peer support for breast cancer patients. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap by focusing on two related research topics. First, we evaluated emotional well-being and (unmet) needs regarding supportive care. Second, we evaluated patients' perspectives on their experiences after having one-on-one peer support. METHODS: A quantitative analysis was conducted to provide insight in patients' symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and supportive care needs (CaSUN-questionnaire). Furthermore, approximately 1 year after the implementation of a one-on-one peer support program, focus groups were conducted to evaluate patients' perspectives regarding one-on-one peer support. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five of 537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2019 and 2020 completed the questionnaires. Quantitative analysis showed increased symptoms of anxiety and depression among breast cancer patients and lower scores on all EORTC-QLQ-C30 domains compared to the Dutch normative population. Of all patients, 27.6% (95%CI = 0.22-0.34) reported to have unmet needs regarding emotional support and 23.1% (95%CI = 0.18-0.29) reported an unmet need to talk to someone who has experienced breast cancer. For the qualitative analysis, 19 breast cancer patients who were taking part in the one-on-one peer support program participated in three focus groups. Benefits, limitations, and wishes regarding the one-on-one peer support program were discussed. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients showed increased anxiety and depression and lower quality of life, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning compared to the Dutch normative population. Almost one-third of breast cancer patients reported unmet needs regarding emotional support and a desire to talk to other breast cancer patients. These (unmet) needs can successfully be met by providing a low-threshold one-on-one peer support program.

Efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accurate tumour localization is crucial for precise surgical targeting and complete tumour removal. Indocyanine green fluorescence, an increasingly used technique in oncological surgery, has shown promise in localizing non-palpable breast tumours. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, including studies from 2012 to 2023. Studies reporting the proportion of breast tumours identified using indocyanine green fluorescence were included. The quality of the studies and their risk of bias were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies ('MINORS') tool. The following outcomes were collected: identification rate, clear resection margins, specimen volume, operative time, re-operation rate, adverse events, and complications. RESULTS: In total, 2061 articles were screened for eligibility, resulting in 11 studies, with 366 patients included: two RCTs, three non-randomized comparative studies, four single-arm studies, and two case reports. All studies achieved a 100 per cent tumour identification rate with indocyanine green fluorescence, except for one study, with an identification rate of 87 per cent (13/15). Clear resection margins were found in 88-100 per cent of all patients. Reoperation rates ranged from 0.0 to 5.4 per cent and no complications or adverse events related to indocyanine green occurred. CONCLUSION: Indocyanine green fluorescence has substantial theoretical advantages compared with current routine localization methods. Although a limited number of studies were available, the current literature suggests that indocyanine green fluorescence is a useful, accurate, and safe technique for the intraoperative localization of non-palpable breast tumours, with equivalent efficacy compared with other localization techniques, potentially reducing tumour-positive margins.

Ensuring access to post-cancer breast reconstructions: COVID-19 lessons from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted breast implant surgery for oncological and non-oncological patients worldwide. This population-based study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to reconstructive and cosmetic breast implant surgery in the Netherlands using real-world data to describe trends, and to identify lessons to prevent future capacity problems within (inter)national healthcare. METHODS: This longitudinal study included patients undergoing breast implant surgery from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. For 2020, the first COVID-19 wave, intermediate period, and second wave were defined. We compared data from during the pandemic to a pre-pandemic (2019) reference year, assessing differences in the number of registered breast implants, and patient and surgery-related characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 34133 breast implants (17459 patients) were included. Compared to 2019, fewer implants were registered for post-cancer (n=484; -14.7%), cosmetic (n=480; -3.6%), and gender-affirming indications (n=104; -38.0%) during 2020. Fewer implants were registered in academic (n=196; -22.0%) and regional hospitals (n=1591; -16.5%), but more in private clinics (n=725; +10.1%). After the first wave, up to twice as many implants were registered in private clinics compared to 2019. No differences were found in characteristics of patients undergoing surgery in 2020 versus 2019. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based reconstructive and gender-affirming surgery were heavily impacted during the pandemic, while private-clinic-based cosmetic surgery quickly recovered. These outcomes are useful to fuel discussions about how healthcare could be reorganized in times of capacity problems. We suggest exploring options to deploy private clinics for ambulatory surgery aiming to keep hospital capacity available for acutely ill patients.

Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI≥25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI≥30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age<40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR.

Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Better Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are often highly affected by disease and treatment, resulting in impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Therefore, evaluation of patients' psychosocial and functional outcomes can be facilitated by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). By providing the patients' own perspectives, PROMs are crucial to improving patient-centered care. This study aimed to improve understanding of the perceived value of PROMs in HNC care and how to optimize their clinical value based on patients' and multidisciplinary healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives. METHODS: Population-based surveys among patients with HNC through their patient association and among HCPs nationwide through the Dutch Head and Neck Audit. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients and 40 multidisciplinary HCPs from all 14 nationwide HNC centers (100%) responded. For patients, the most important element of patient-reported outcome collection systems was including a call to action for those with worse-than-average scores (28%), whereas clinicians found discussing scores during clinical visits the most important (39%). Although 16% of clinicians found short completion time the most important element, none of the patients selected completion time as most important. Additionally, 17% of patients stated completion time was not an issue, provided clinicians would use the outcomes for clinical purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients and clinicians acknowledged the value of patient-reported outcomes, patients would like to be more involved in the clinical implications of their outcomes. Enhancing patients' involvement by a call to action and providing feedback on their scores during outpatient clinic visits may improve the clinical value of PROMs.

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.

Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: In immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), large variation is observed in current practices between a direct-to-implant and a two-stage approach (insertion of a breast implant after a tissue expander). This population-based study aimed to compare unplanned short- and long-term revision incidence between direct-to-implant and two-stage IBBR in The Netherlands. METHODS: All patients who underwent immediate IBBR following a mastectomy between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Short- and long-term unplanned revision incidences were studied per immediate IBBR, including revision indications and the total number of additional operations. Confounding by indication was limited using propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 4512 breast implants (3948 women) were included, of which 2100 (47%) were for direct-to-implant IBBR and 2412 (53%) were for two-stage IBBR. Median (IQR) follow-up was 29 months (range, 16 to 45 months) and 33 months (range, 21 to 47 months), respectively. Short-term revision incidence was 4.0% and 11.7%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.42%). Long-term revision incidence was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.1%) and 16.4% (95% CI, 14.8 to 17.9%), respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, similar results were found. In the direct-to-implant group, more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations than in the two-stage group. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned revision surgery occurred less often after direct-to-implant IBBR, and more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations compared to two-stage IBBR. These results, based on real-world data, are important for improving patient counseling and shared decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Variation in the use of infection control measures and infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery in the Netherlands.

Background: The use and effect of most infection control measures (ICMs) in breast implant surgery are still debated, likely resulting in undesired variation in current practices. Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between the number and combinations of ICMs used and the infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery. Additionally, national variation between Dutch healthcare institutions in ICM use was evaluated. Methods: For this multicentre, population-based study, all patients who received a primary breast implant or tissue expander for breast augmentation or reconstruction between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Seven prospectively collected ICMs were investigated: preoperative antibiotics, implant and/or pocket irrigation, glove change, nipple guards, insertion sleeve, postoperative drains, and postoperative antibiotics. Results: This study included 52,415 implants (85% augmentation, 15% reconstruction).The median (IQR) number of ICMs used was 3 (3-4) for augmentation and 4 (4-5) for reconstruction. Median follow-up was 30 months for augmentation and 34 months for reconstruction. Infection-related revision incidence was 0.1% for augmentation and 2.1% for reconstruction. Most infection-related revisions occurred within 2 months for augmentation and 2.5 months for reconstruction. The impact of ICM use on infection-related revision incidence remained unclear, given its low incidence. A significant variation was observed between institutions in the use of postoperative antibiotics and drains. Conclusions: Although the use of different ICMs varied considerably between institutions, the infection-related revision incidence after breast implant surgery was generally low. Most surgeons used four ICMs for breast reconstruction and three ICMs for breast augmentation. Further studies on the causes and effects of the observed variation are needed.

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Breast Cancer Patients Through Fluorescent Imaging Using Indocyanine Green: The INFLUENCE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the (sentinel) lymph node detection rate of indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescent imaging versus standard-of-care 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-mapping. BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer is sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-guided surgery using radioisotope technetium ( 99m Tc), sometimes combined with blue dye. A promising alternative is fluorescent imaging using ICG. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we enrolled 102 consecutive patients with invasive early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer. Patients were planned for breast conserving surgery and SLNB between August 2020 and June 2021. The day or morning before surgery, patients were injected with 99m Tc-nanocolloid. In each patient, SLNB was first performed using ICG-fluorescent imaging, after which excised lymph nodes were tested with the gamma-probe for 99m Tc-uptake ex vivo, and the axilla was checked for residual 99m Tc-activity. The detection rate was defined as the proportion of patients in whom at least 1 (S)LN was detected with either tracer. RESULTS: In total, 103 SLNBs were analyzed. The detection rate of ICG-fluorescence was 96.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI)=90.4%-98.9%] versus 86.4% (95% CI=78.3%-92.4%) for 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. The detection rate for pathological lymph nodes was 86.7% (95% CI=59.5%-98.3%) for both ICG and 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. A median of 2 lymph nodes were removed. ICG-fluorescent imaging did not increase detection time. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-fluorescence showed a higher (S)LN detection rate than 99m Tc-nanocoilloid, and equal detection rate for pathological (S)LNs. ICG-fluorescence may be used as a safe and effective alternative to 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for SLNB in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2 -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR. LAY SUMMERY: Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Most patients reported positively or neutrally of having served as controls in the trials within cohorts design.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' experience of having served as controls without a notification at the time of randomization in the context of the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design. METHODS: Patients were asked for their opinion on having served as controls in TwiCs, before and after having been provided the trial results. Patients had provided broad consent to randomization at cohort entry and had served as controls in one of two TwiCs (an exercise program after breast cancer treatment or radiotherapy dose-escalation for rectal cancer). RESULTS: Two to 6 years after cohort entry, 15% (n = 16) of all patients remembered having provided broad consent to randomization. Before disclosure of trial results, 47% (n = 52) of patients thought positively, 45% (n = 50) neutrally, and 2% (n = 2) negatively of having served as controls in one of the two trials. Seventeen percent (n = 18) of patients were positive, 65% (n = 71) neutral, and 11% (n = 12) negative about not having been notified when serving as controls. The survey results were comparable after disclosure of trial results. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the TwiCs design with the staged-informed consent procedure. Keeping patients engaged and aware of the consents provided might further improve patients' experience of serving as controls in TwiCs.

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.

Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. METHODS: Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture" and the smallest for "coating." All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

Clinical characteristics associated with pain in patients with peripheral vascular malformations.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular malformations (VM) can negatively impact the patient's quality of life (QoL). Pain is a common problem in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors associated with pain and to assess how pain affects QoL. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary vascular anomaly expertise center. Between June and December 2020, all patients from our local database (334 adults and 189 children) with peripheral VMs were invited to complete the Outcome Measures for VAscular MAlformations questionnaire to evaluate the presence, frequency, and intensity of pain. Additionally, patients were asked to complete several Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scales to evaluate their QoL. Risk factors associated with pain were identified in bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. QoL domains were compared between patients who experienced pain and patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients completed the questionnaire about pain and 133 patients completed all QoL questionnaires. Approximately one-half of the patients (52%) reported pain in the past four weeks and 57% of these patients reported pain daily or several times a week. Female sex (P = .009), lesions located in the upper extremity (P < .001) or lower extremity (P < .001), and intramuscular/intraosseous lesions (P = .004) were independently associated with the presence of pain. The following QoL domains were diminished in patients who experienced pain in comparison with patients who did not: pain interference (P < .001), physical functioning (P < .001), and social participation (P < .001) in adults, and pain interference (P = .001), mobility (P = .001), and anxiety (P = .024) in children. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is a frequently reported complaint in patients with VMs and is present in approximately one-half of the patients. Patients with lesions located in the upper or lower extremity, intramuscular/intraosseous lesions, and female patients are more likely to experience pain. The presence of pain negatively impacted patients' QoL. Although VM are a benign condition and expectative management is frequently applied, our study shows that pain is a serious concern and needs to be actively assessed. Pain is a sign of various etiologies and should be examined to properly treat the pain.

(Ex-)breast cancer patients with (pre-existing) symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with (perceived) access to health care among (ex-)breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional study within a large prospective, multicenter cohort of (ex-)breast cancer patients, i.e., UMBRELLA. All participants enrolled in the UMBRELLA cohort between October 2013 and April 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 1051 (66.0%) participants completed the survey. During COVID-19, 284 (27.0%) participants reported clinically relevant increased levels of anxiety and/or depression, i.e., total HADS score ≥ 12. Participants with anxiety and/or depression reported statistically significant higher barriers to contact their general practitioner (47.5% vs. 25.0%, resp.) and breast cancer physicians (26.8% vs. 11.2%, resp.) compared to participants without these symptoms. In addition, a higher proportion of participants with anxiety and/or depression reported that their current treatment or (after)care was affected by COVID-19 compared to those without these symptoms (32.7% vs. 20.5%, resp.). Factors independently associated with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 were pre-existent anxiety (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.1-9.2) or depression (OR 6.0, 95% CI 3.5-10.2). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, (ex-)breast cancer patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers. Also, they more often report that their health care was affected by COVID-19. Risk factors for anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 are pre-existent symptoms of anxiety or depression. Extra attention-including mental health support-is needed for this group.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (officially declared on the March 11, 2020), and the resulting measures, are impacting daily life and medical management of breast cancer patients and survivors. We evaluated to what extent these changes have affected quality of life, physical, and psychosocial well-being of patients previously or currently being treated for breast cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted within a prospective, multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients and survivors (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion). Shortly after the implementation of COVID-19 measures, an extra survey was sent to 1595 participants, including the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C30) and breast cancer-specific (BR23) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with the most recent PROs collected within UMBRELLA pre-COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on PROs was assessed using mixed model analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: 1051 patients and survivors (65.9%) completed the survey; 31.1% (n = 327) reported a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistically significant deterioration in emotional functioning was observed (mean = 82.6 [SD = 18.7] to 77.9 [SD = 17.3]; P < .001), and 505 (48.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.0% to 51.1%) patients and survivors reported moderate to severe loneliness. Small improvements were observed in quality of life and physical, social, and role functioning. In the subgroup of 51 patients under active treatment, social functioning strongly deteriorated (77.3 [95% CI = 69.4 to 85.2] to 61.3 [95% CI = 52.6 to 70.1]; P = .002). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer patients and survivors were less likely to contact physicians and experienced a deterioration in their emotional functioning. Patients undergoing active treatment reported a substantial drop in social functioning. One in 2 reported loneliness that was moderate or severe. Online interventions supporting mental health and social interaction are needed during times of social distancing and lockdowns.

Oncology patients were found to understand and accept the Trials within Cohorts design.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Trials within Cohorts design aims to reduce recruitment difficulties and disappointment bias in pragmatic trials. On cohort enrollment, broad informed consent for randomization is asked, after which cohort participants can be randomized to interventions or serve as controls without further notification. We evaluated patients' recollection, understanding, and acceptance of broad consent in a clinical oncology setting. METHODS: We surveyed 610 patients with cancer participating in ongoing TwiCs; 482 patients (79%) responded, of which 312 patients shortly after cohort enrollment, 108 patients after randomization to an intervention (12-18 months after cohort enrollment), and a random sample of 62 cohort participants who had not been selected for interventions (1-6 months after cohort enrollment). RESULTS: Shortly after providing cohort consent, 76% of patients (238/312) adequately remembered whether they had given broad consent for randomization. Of patients randomly offered interventions, 76% (82/108) remembered giving broad consent for randomization; 41% (44/108) understood they were randomly selected, 44% (48/108) were not interested in selection procedures, and 10% (11/108) did not understand selection was random. Among patients not selected for interventions, 42% (26/62) understood selection was random; 89% felt neutral regarding the scenario of "not being selected for an intervention while your data were being used in comparison with patients receiving interventions," 10% felt reassured (6/62) and 2% scared/insecure (2/62). CONCLUSION: Patients adequately remember giving broad consent for randomization shortly after cohort enrollment and after being offered an intervention, but recollection is lower in those never selected for interventions. Patients are acceptant of serving as control without further notifications.

Compression Vest Treatment for Symptomatic Breast Edema in Women Treated for Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study.

Background: Lymphedema of the breast/chest wall after breast cancer treatment is often associated with pain and reduced quality of life. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate whether the use of a compression vest reduced symptoms of breast/chest wall edema in breast cancer patients. Methods and Results: This single-center study included patients (n = 25) with symptomatic breast/chest wall edema with a pain score of ≥3 on the Numerical Rating Scales (range 1-10). The patients were instructed to wear a compression vest (Lymphatrex, Class II) for 6 months. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare differences in patient-reported pain intensity/severity. Analyses included all patients with available data. In total, 17 (68%) continued to wear their vests for 6 months, whereas the other 8 withdrew prematurely. At baseline, median pain severity (4.9, interquartile range [IQR] 3.6-6.0) and pain interference (4.3, IQR 2.1-5.9) scores were significantly higher compared with pain scores after wearing the compression vest for 6 months (1.8 IQR 1.0-4.8 and 1.4 IQR 0.9-4.4, resp.). Patient-reported breast/chest wall swelling decreased from 92% (n = 22) at baseline to 71% (n = 12) at 6 months. The prevalence of moderate/severe patient-reported breast/chest wall pain declined from 63% (n = 15) at baseline to 18% (n = 3) at 6 months. Physical, emotional, and social functioning improved over time and was comparable to scores of the Dutch reference population. Conclusion: The results of this pilot study suggest that a compression vest could be an acceptable and effective treatment option for patients with painful breast/chest wall edema. In compliant patients, swelling and pain was significantly reduced.

Breast Edema Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy: Patient-Reported Prevalence, Determinants, and Effect on Health-Related Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: The association between lymphedema of the arm and impaired health-related QoL (HR-QoL) has led to changes in clinical practice. However, data on lymphedema of the breast (ie, breast edema) are lacking. We prospectively evaluated patient-reported prevalence and determinants of breast edema and its effect on patient-reported HR-QoL and breast pain. METHODS: We prospectively included 836 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy between October 2013 and October 2016 (UMBRELLA cohort). Patient-reported breast edema, HR-QoL, and breast pain were assessed by means of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-C30/BR23 before starting radiotherapy and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months thereafter. We assessed which patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were associated with breast edema. With mixed-effects models, we assessed the impact of breast edema on patient-reported HR-QoL domains and breast pain over time, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 28 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 15), 207 (24.8%) patients reported breast edema at some point in time. Prevalence of breast edema was highest at 6 months (12.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.0 to 14.7). Larger tumor size, oncoplastic surgery, axillary lymph node dissection, locoregional radiotherapy, radiotherapy boost on the tumor bed, and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with breast edema. Breast edema was independently associated with more breast pain and with poorer QoL, physical functioning, and body image. CONCLUSIONS: Breast edema occurs frequently within the first year after breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy and is independently associated with impaired HR-QoL and more breast pain. This information is important for use in clinical practice and should be discussed with patients during shared decision making.