Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: Is There a Need for Standardization? Results of a Nationwide Survey.

Introduction: The NABON Breast Cancer Audit showed that more than 70% of the Dutch women undergoing surgery for breast cancer maintained their breast contour by breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or by immediate reconstruction after ablative surgery. The proportion of oncoplastic surgery applied in patients undergoing breast-conserving treatment remains unknown. The aim of our study was to assess the need for standardization of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) in an attempt to enable measurement of the quality of OPBCS. Methods: To gain a better understanding of current practice in OPBCS, we sent a questionnaire to all breast surgeons in The Netherlands who are members of the breast surgery working group (n = 134). Results: A total of 60 breast surgeons, representing different hospitals in The Netherlands, responded. 61.7% of the breast surgeons performed BCS on 60-100% of their patients. 68.3% responded that BCS was performed using OPS techniques in up to 40% of their patients. OPBCS was defined as level I volume displacement by 45.2% of the breast surgeons and as BCS performed by a breast surgeon and plastic surgeon together by 32.3% of the breast surgeons. 94.5% indicated that there is a need for standardization of the definition of OPBCS in The Netherlands. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that OPBCS is a major part of daily clinical practice of Dutch breast surgeons treating BC patients. Despite this, there is no clear definition of OPS in breast-conserving treatment in The Netherlands. Only after standardization can a classification code and quality indicator be initiated for OPBCS. Ultimately, this will facilitate improvement in quality of BC care.

Patterns of care over 10 years in young breast cancer patients in the Netherlands, a nationwide population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Each year, around 600 young (<40 years) breast cancer (BC) patients are registered in the national NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA). The aim of this study is to compare patient and treatment characteristics of young and older age BC patients over time with a focus on outcome of quality indicators (QIs). Furthermore, we analysed whether de-escalation trends of treatment can be recognized to the same degree in both patient groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From October 2011 to October 2020 all patients treated for stage I-III invasive BC were included. Tumour characteristics, treatment variables and outcome of QIs of two age categories young (<40 years) and older patient (≥40 years) were analysed. RESULTS: In total 114,700 patients were included: 4.6% young patients and 95.4% older patients. Young patients more often presented with a palpable mass, higher stage, and triple-negative BC. Overall, young patients more often started with neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) (54.3% vs. 18.6%) and a greater proportion of the young patients retained their breast contour after surgery (73.5% vs. 69.3%). De-escalation trends such as decrease in axillary lymph node dissections and in the use of boost were observed. The omission of radiation treatment after breast conserving surgery was only observed in older patients. CONCLUSION: Although this study shows that young women more often present with unfavourable tumours, therapeutic procedures are performed with a higher adherence to the QIs than for older patients and young women do benefit from some de-escalation trends to the same extend as older patients.

Transparency in quality of radiotherapy for breast cancer in the Netherlands: a national registration of radiotherapy-parameters.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the curative treatment of approximately 70% of breast cancer (BC) patients. Wide practice variation has been reported in RT dose, fractionation and its treatment planning for BC. To decrease this practice variation, it is essential to first gain insight into the current variation in RT treatment between institutes. This paper describes the development of the NABON Breast Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (NBCA-R), a structural nationwide registry of BC RT data of all BC patients treated with at least surgery and RT. METHODS: A working group consisting of representatives of the BC Platform of the Dutch Radiotherapy Society selected a set of dose volume parameters deemed to be surrogate outcome parameters, both for tumour control and toxicity. Two pilot studies were carried out in six RT institutes. In the first pilot study, data were manually entered into a secured web-based system. In the second pilot study, an automatic Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) RT upload module was created and tested. RESULTS: The NBCA-R dataset was created by selecting RT parameters describing given dose, target volumes, coverage and homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Entering the data was made mandatory for all Dutch RT departments. In the first pilot study (N = 1093), quite some variation was already detected. Application of partial breast irradiation varied from 0 to 17% between the 6 institutes and boost to the tumour bed from 26.5 to 70.2%. For patients treated to the left breast or chest wall only, the average mean heart dose (MHD) varied from 0.80 to 1.82 Gy; for patients treated to the breast/chest wall only, the average mean lung dose (MLD) varied from 2.06 to 3.3 Gy. In the second pilot study 6 departments implemented the DICOM-RT upload module in daily practice. Anonymised data will be available for researchers via a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) framework. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of RT parameters and implemented registration for all Dutch BC patients. With the use of an automated upload module registration burden will be minimized. Based on the data in the NBCA-R analyses of the practice variation will be done, with the ultimate aim to improve quality of BC RT. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

Importance of patient reported and clinical outcomes for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and their treating physicians. Do clinicians know what patients want?

INTRODUCTION: Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians. METHODS: Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes. RESULTS: In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88-26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9-6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1-32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5-19.4, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.