Search

Purpose: Our purpose was to assess the prevalence of patient-reported symptoms of local late toxicity in patients with irradiated breast cancer and determine the association between late toxicity and quality of life. Methods: Within the prospective Utrecht cohort for Multiple BReast cancer intErvention studies and Long-term evaluation cohort, a survey on self-reported late toxicity was sent to all patients with breast cancer with ≥12 months interval since radiation therapy treated with curative intent. Patients were treated with hypofractionated radiation therapy of 40 Gy/15 fractions or 42.5 Gy/16 fractions, with or without a simultaneous integrated boost. Symptoms of late toxicity were evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale. Late toxicity was defined as moderate-severe breast or chest wall pain combined with at least 1 other mild-severe late toxicity symptom, that is, breast or arm/hand lymphedema, firmness of the breast, or impaired arm movement. Physical, role, and social functioning were measured before, during, and after the late toxicity survey using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core questionnaire-C30 and compared with a Dutch normative population. Results: In the study, 1613/2248 patients (72%) were included. Of those, 16% (n = 265) reported late toxicity. The median time interval between radiation therapy and survey was 38 months (interquartile range, 21-55). Moderate/severe firmness of the breast, chest wall pain, and breast pain were reported by, respectively, 18% (n = 295), 14% (n = 225), and 10% (n = 140) of all patients. Physical, role, and social functioning were below the clinical threshold (ie, clinically relevant impairment) in 13% to 52% of patients with late toxicity and 2% to 26% of patients without late toxicity. Patients with late toxicity significantly more often received analgesics, physiotherapy, and lymphedema therapy compared with patients without late toxicity. Conclusions: This study provided insight into the prevalence of patient-reported late toxicity after hypofractionated radiation therapy and the influence of late toxicity on quality of life after breast cancer. These results may help health care professionals to inform their patients about long-term effects of breast cancer treatment including hypofractionated radiation therapy.

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.

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-021-06458-3.

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.