Variation in the Use of Boost Irradiation in Breast-Conserving Therapy in the Netherlands: The Effect of a National Guideline and Cofounding Factors.

AIMS: To determine the variation in radiation therapy boost use in a nationwide study following adjustment of a national guideline in 2011, as well as to address the relationship to patient, tumour and radiation therapy institutional factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All invasive breast cancers and non-invasive breast cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ; DCIS) that received external whole-breast radiation between 2011 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Box plots were used to evaluate variation over time and logistic regression was carried out to address other factors influencing the variation. Funnel plots were constructed, with unadjusted and adjusted data for patient and tumour factors significantly affecting the use of a boost. RESULTS: For breast cancer patients (n = 45,207), the proportion receiving a boost and its range decreased over the years from 37.3-92.7% in 2011 to 28.3-65.4% in 2016. This trend was not observed in DCIS patients (n = 6,844). Young age, large tumours, high grade and the absence of tumour-free resection margins were associated with boost use for both breast cancer and DCIS. For breast cancer, triple-negative tumour subtype and metastatic lymph node involvement were also associated with boost use. Institutional factors did not influence the use of a boost and institutional variation remained substantial after case-mix adjustments. CONCLUSION: Following adjustment of a nationwide implemented guideline, variation in radiation therapy boost use decreased in patients with breast cancer but not in patients with DCIS. Several tumour and patient characteristics were associated with boost use. Substantial institutional variation could not be explained by differences in patient, tumour or predefined institutional characteristics.

Hospital transfer after a breast cancer diagnosis: A population-based study in the Netherlands of the extent, predictive characteristics and its impact on time to treatment.

PURPOSE: Patients may transfer of hospital for clinical reasons but this may delay time to treatment. The purpose of this study is to provide insight in the extent of hospital transfer in breast cancer care; which type of patients transfer and what is the impact on time to treatment. METHODS: We included 41,413 breast cancer patients registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry between 2014 and 2016. We investigated transfer of hospital between diagnosis and first treatment being surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Co-variate adjusted characteristics predictive for hospital transfer were determined. To adjust for possible treatment by indication bias we used propensity score matching (PSM). Time to treatment in patients with and without hospital transfer was compared. RESULTS: Among 41,413 patients, 8.5% of all patients transferred to another hospital between diagnosis and first treatment; 4.9% before primary surgery and 24.8% before NAC. Especially young (aged <40 years) patients and those who underwent a mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) were more likely to transfer. The association of mastectomy with IBR with hospital transfer remained when using PSM. Hospital transfer after diagnosis significantly prolonged time to treatment; breast-conserving surgery by 5 days, mastectomy by 7 days, mastectomy with IBR by 9 days and NAC by 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: While almost 5% of Dutch patients treated with primary surgery transfer hospital after diagnosis and up to 25% for patients treated with NAC, our findings suggest that especially those treated with primary surgery are at risk for additional treatment delay by hospital transfer.

How to improve patient safety and quality of care in breast implant surgery? First outcomes from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (2015-2017).

BACKGROUND: Although the use of breast implants is generally considered to be safe, breast implants are associated with short- and long-term complications. To evaluate and improve the quality of breast implant surgery, and increase our knowledge of implant performance, the national Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) was established in 2015. DBIR is one of the first up-and-running breast implant registries worldwide and follows an opt-out structure. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the first outcomes and experiences of the DBIR. METHODS: The national coverage of DBIR was studied using data from the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. The incidence rate of breast implants was calculated for 2016 and 2017, and patient, device, and surgery characteristics were compared between cosmetic breast augmentations or reconstructive indications. Four infection control, measures were selected to demonstrate the variation in the Dutch clinical practice. RESULTS: In 2016, 95% of the hospitals and 78% of the private clinics participated in DBIR. Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 15,049 patients and 30,541 breast implants were included. A minimum breast implant incidence rate of 1 per 1,691 women could be determined for 2017. The majority of devices were inserted for a cosmetic indication (85.2%). In general, patient, device, and surgery characteristics differed per indication group. Substantial variation was seen in the use of infection control measures (range 0-100%). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results obtained from DBIR show high national participation rates and support further developments toward the improvement of breast implant surgery and patient safety.

Current decisions on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Experts' experiences in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the opinion of surgical and medical oncologists on neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for early breast cancer. METHODS: Surgical and medical oncologists (N = 292) participating in breast cancer care in the Netherlands were invited for a 20-question survey on the influence of patient, disease, and management related factors on their decisions towards NAC. RESULTS: A total of 138 surgical and medical oncologists from 64 out of 89 different Dutch hospitals completed the survey. NAC was recommended for locally advanced breast cancer (94%) and for downstaging to enable breast conserving surgery (BCS) (75%). Despite willingness to downstage, 64% of clinicians routinely recommended NAC when systemic therapy was indicated preoperatively. Reported reasons to refrain from NAC are comorbidities (68%), age >70 years (52%), and WHO-performance status ≥2 (93%). Opinions on NAC and surgical management were inconclusive; while 75% recommends NAC to enable BCS, some stated that BCS after NAC increases the risk of a non-radical resection (21%), surgical complications (9%) and recurrence of disease (5%). CONCLUSION: This article emphasizes the need for more consensus among specialists on the indications for NAC in early BC patients. Unambiguous and evidence-based treatment information could improve doctor-patient communication, supporting the patient in chemotherapy timing decision-making.

Patients' experiences with decisions on timing of chemotherapy for breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite potential advantages, application of chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant (NAC) instead of adjuvant (AC) setting for breast cancer (BC) patients varies among hospitals. The aim of this study was to gain insight in patients' experiences with decisions on the timing of chemotherapy for stage II and III BC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 35-item online questionnaire was distributed among female patients (age>18) treated with either NAC or AC for clinical stage II/III invasive BC in 2013-2014 in the Netherlands. Outcome measures were the experienced exchange of information on the possible choice between both options and patients' involvement in the final decision on chemotherapy timing. Chemotherapy treatment experience was measured with the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ). RESULTS: Of 805 invited patients, 49% responded (179 NAC, 215 AC). NAC-treated patients were younger and more often treated in teaching/academic hospitals and high-volume hospitals. Information on the possibility of NAC was given to a minority of AC-treated patients (AC, stage II:14%, stage III: 31%). Information on pros and cons of both NAC and AC was rated sufficient in about three fourth of respondents. Respondents not always felt having a choice in the timing of chemotherapy (stage II: 54% NAC vs 36% AC; stage III: 26% NAC, 54% AC). CONCLUSION: The need to make a treatment decision on NAC was found to be made explicit in only a small number of adjuvant treated patients, in particular in BC stage II. Less than half of the respondents felt they had a real choice.

Variation in use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III breast cancer: Results of the Dutch national breast cancer audit.

OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is important in the optimal treatment of patients with locally advanced (stage III) breast cancer (BC). The objective of this study was to examine the clinical practice of NAC for stage III BC patients in all Dutch hospitals participating in BC care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients aged 18-70 years who received surgery for stage III BC from January 2011 to September 2015 were selected from the national multidisciplinary NABON Breast Cancer Audit. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess independent predictors of NAC use, focussing on hospital factors. RESULTS: A total of 1230 out of 1556 patients with stage III BC (79%) received NAC prior to surgery. The use of NAC did not change over time. We observed a large variation of NAC use between hospitals (0-100%). Age <50 years, breast MRI, large tumour size, advanced nodal disease, negative hormone receptor status and hospital participation in neoadjuvant clinical studies were significant independent predictors of NAC use (all P < 0.001). NAC use in stage III BC was not influenced by hospital type and hospital surgical volume. After adjustment for all independent predictors, variation in NAC use between hospitals remained (0% to 97%). CONCLUSION: NAC was used in 79% of patients with stage III BC, which represent a high quality of care in the NL. Patient, tumour, clinical management and hospital factors could not explain considerable variation in its use between hospitals. Hospital participation in neoadjuvant studies did show to improve the use of NAC in daily practice.