Nurse-Led Individualized Follow-Up Versus Regular Physician-Led Visits After Early Breast Cancer (MyHealth): A Phase III Randomized, Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Follow-up after breast cancer with regular visits has failed to detect recurrences, be cost-effective, and address patient needs. METHODS: MyHealth is a phase III randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02949167). Patients, who recently completed primary treatment for stage I-II breast cancer, were randomly assigned in variable block sizes and stratified by age and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status to intervention or control follow-up. The nurse-led intervention comprised three to five individual self-management sessions, regular reporting of symptoms, and navigation to health care services. The control follow-up comprised regular outpatient visits with the physician. The primary outcome was breast cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) measured by the Trial Outcome Index-Physical/Functional/Breast summary score of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast 2 years after random assignment. Secondary outcomes were fear of recurrence, anxiety, depression, and health care utilization. Analyses were intention-to-treat and P values were two-sided with 95% confidence level set at 0.005 because of multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Among 1,101 eligible patients, 875 were invited and 503 were randomly assigned to control (n = 252) or intervention (n = 251) follow-up. At 2 years, patients in the intervention group reported a significantly and clinically relevant higher QoL (mean, 75.69 [standard deviation [SD], 12.27]) than patients in the control group (71.26 [SD, 14.08]), with a mean difference of 5.05 (95% CI, 3.30 to 6.79; P < .001). The intervention group reported significantly less fear of recurrence, anxiety, and depression; they had fewer physician consultations but more nurse contacts and an unchanged diagnostic imaging pattern. The effect on all outcomes was stable through a 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The MyHealth study suggested a new strategy for follow-up after early breast cancer as it provided significant improvements in QoL.

The association between education and fear of recurrence among breast cancer patients in follow-up - and the mediating effect of self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Major restructuring of surveillance after breast cancer treatment with less follow-up consultations may result in insecurity and fear of recurrence (FCR) among the less resourceful breast cancer patients. We investigate the association between breast cancer patients' education and FCR and if self-efficacy mediates the associations between education and FCR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted from 2017 to 2019, among 1773 breast cancer patients shortly after having their follow-up switched from regular outpatient visits with an oncologist to either nurse-led or patient-initiated follow-up, with a subsequent questionnaire after 12 months. Data on disease and treatment characteristics were extracted from medical records and the Danish Breast Cancer Group Database. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between education and FCR. Separate analyses were conducted for patients ≤ and >5 years since diagnosis and all models were adjusted for age and cohabitation status. To explore potential mediation by self-efficacy, we conducted regression analyses on education and FCR further adjusting for self-efficacy. RESULTS: The participation rate was 57%, and after the exclusion of patients due to missing data, 917 were included in analyses. Patients with long education had significantly less FCR compared to patients with short education (OR (95% CI) 0.71 (0.51;0,99)). When separated by time since diagnosis, there was no association among patients >5 years since diagnosis while the OR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.30;0.85) for patients ≤5 years since diagnosis. Further adjusting for self-efficacy among patients <5 years since diagnosis resulted in an OR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33;0.95) among patients with long compared to short education. CONCLUSION: Up to 5 years after diagnosis, breast cancer patients with long education are less likely to experience FCR than patients with short education. Self-efficacy mediated only a very small part of this association, indicating that other factors play a role in socioeconomic differences in FCR among breast cancer patients.

Patients in phase 1 cancer trials: psychological distress and understanding of trial information.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress may be present among patients who are considering enrollment in phase 1 cancer trials, as they have advanced cancer and no documented treatment options remain. However, the prevalence of psychological distress has not been previously investigated in larger cohorts. In complex phase 1 cancer trials, it is important to ensure adequate understanding of the study premises, such as the undocumented effects and the risk of adverse events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, patients completed questionnaires at two time points. We investigated psychological distress, measured as stress, anxiety, and depression, among patients at their first visit to the phase 1 unit (N = 229). Further, we investigated the understanding of trial information among patients who were enrolled in a phase 1 cancer trial (N = 57). RESULTS: We enrolled 75% of 307 eligible patients. We found a lower mean score of stress in our population compared to population norms, while the mean scores of anxiety and depression were higher. A total of 9% showed moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety and 11% showed moderate to severe symptoms of depression, which indicates higher levels than cancer patients in general. A total of 46 (81% of enrolled patients) completed questionnaires on trial information and consent. The understanding of the information on phase 1 cancer trials in these patients was slightly lower than the level reported for cancer trials in general. Some aspects relating to purpose, benefit, and additional risks were understood by fewer than half of the patients. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that distress is not as prevalent in the population of patients referred to phase 1 cancer trials as in the general cancer population. Although patients' understanding of trial information was reasonable, some aspects of complex phase 1 cancer trials were not easily understood by enrolled patients.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

MyHealth: specialist nurse-led follow-up in breast cancer. A randomized controlled trial - development and feasibility.

Background: Traditionally, women treated for breast cancer (BC) have been followed up through regular oncologist-led visits in outpatient clinics, focusing on detection of recurrences, new primary BC, symptom management, and psychological support. However, this follow-up routine is expensive and its effectiveness has been questioned. Consequently, alternative follow-up programs have been tested. The Guided Self-Determination method (GSD), which facilitates partnership between health-care provider and patient, has been shown to improve self-management in patients with chronic conditions, including cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is another increasingly used tool to improve patient-provider communication, symptom monitoring and control. In combination, GSD and PRO may have the potential to meet the objectives of BC follow-up. To test this, we developed the MyHealth study, a randomized controlled trial comparing a nurse-led follow-up program based on GSD, collection of PRO, and patient navigation with routine oncologist-led follow-up. Here we describe how we developed the intervention and are currently testing the feasibility of the MyHealth protocol in terms of recruitment, adherence to the intervention, collection of PRO, and patient navigation. Material and methods: We have invited the first 25 consecutively enrolled patients to test the MyHealth intervention. This consists of (1) 3-5 initial GSD appointments with a nurse, (2) collection of PRO, and (3) symptom management and patient navigation. The randomized trial was launched in January 2017 and is still recruiting. Results of the feasibility study: Of 32 patients invited, 25 accepted participation. At 18-month follow-up, two patients have withdrawn, 143 PRO questionnaires have been completed (mean 5.7/patient) resulting in 59 nurse contacts (mean 2.4 per patient) and 14 project physician contacts (mean 0.6 per patient). Conclusion: A high recruitment rate and response rate to PRO indicate that follow-up led by specialist nurses, based on collection of PRO is feasible and acceptable for patients treated for early stage BC.

Prolonged job strain and subsequent risk of cancer in women - a longitudinal study, based on the Danish Nurse Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The role of psychological stress in cancer risk is continuously debated. Stress at work is the most common form of stress and previous studies have shown inconsistent results regarding cancer risk. In this longitudinal study, we examined the association between prolonged job strain across six years and subsequent cancer risk. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used data from 6571 cancer-free women from the Danish Nurse Cohort aged 45-70 years at inclusion, and self-reported questionnaires on job strain at baseline in 1993 and again in 1999. Prolonged job strain was defined as high job busyness and speed, and low control in both 1993 and 1999. Information on cancer diagnosis was obtained from the Danish Cancer Registry. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for overall cancer as well as subgroups of virus immune-related, hormone-related, digestive and lung cancers according to level of prolonged job strain. The women were followed from 1 January 2000 until cancer diagnosis, emigration, death or 31 December 2013 (mean follow-up 13 years) and models were adjusted for potential confounders. Effect modification was examined according to working nightshifts and full time. RESULTS: No significant differences in the risk of overall cancer or any of the cancer subgroups were identified in relation to prolonged busyness, speed, influence, or overall job strain. Effect modification by working full time was observed when examining job influence in relation to overall cancer risk, and by working nightshifts when examining job influence in relation to hormone related cancer risk. However, none of the associations were significant in stratified analyses. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of an increased risk of any cancer among women with prolonged job strain. Since a large proportion of cancer patients perceive psychological stress as a possible cause of their cancer disease, it is of importance to communicate these findings to the public.