Background: Follow‑up of curatively treated primary breast cancer patients consists of surveillance and aftercare and is currently mostly the same for all patients. A more personalized approach, based on patients’ individual risk of recurrence and personal needs and preferences, may reduce patient burden and reduce (healthcare) costs. The NABOR study will examine the (cost‑)effectiveness of personalized surveillance (PSP) and personalized aftercare plans (PAP) on patient‑reported cancer worry, self‑rated and overall quality of life and (cost‑)effectiveness. Methods: A prospective multicenter multiple interrupted time series (MITs) design is being used. In this design, 10 participating hospitals will be observed for a period of eighteen months, while they ‑stepwise‑ will transit from care as usual to PSPs and PAPs. The PSP contains decisions on the surveillance trajectory based on individual risks and needs, assessed with the ‘Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid’ including the INFLUENCE prediction tool. The PAP contains decisions on the aftercare trajectory based on individual needs and preferences and available care resources, which decision‑making is supported by a patient decision aid. Patients are non‑metastasized female primary breast cancer patients (N= 1040) who are curatively treated and start follow‑up care. Patient reported outcomes will be measured at five points in time during two years of follow‑up care (starting about one year after treatment and every six months thereafter). In addition, data on diagnostics and hospital visits from patients’ Electronical Health Records (EHR) will be gathered. Primary outcomes are patient‑reported cancer worry (Cancer Worry Scale) and over‑all quality of life (as assessed with EQ‑VAS score). Secondary outcomes include health care costs and resource use, health‑related quality of life (as measured with EQ5D‑5L/SF‑12/EORTC‑QLQ‑C30), risk perception, shared decision‑making, patient satisfaction, societal participation, and cost‑effectiveness. Next, the uptake and appreciation of personalized plans and patients’ experiences of their decision‑making process will be evaluated. Discussion: This study will contribute to insight in the (cost‑)effectiveness of personalized follow‑up care and contributes to development of uniform evidence‑based guidelines, stimulating sustainable implementation of personalized surveillance and aftercare plans. Trial registration: Study sponsor: ZonMw. Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (2023), ID: NCT05975437.
MULTIFILE
Purpose: Breast cancer follow-up (surveillance and aftercare) varies from one-size-fits-all to more personalised approaches. A systematic review was performed to get insight in existing evidence on (cost-)efectiveness of personalised follow-up. Methods: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane were searched between 01–01-2010 and 10–10-2022 (review registered in PROSPERO:CRD42022375770). The inclusion population comprised nonmetastatic breast cancer patients≥18 years, after completing curative treatment. All intervention-control studies studying personalised surveillance and/or aftercare designed for use during the entire follow-up period were included. All review processes including risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers. Characteristics of included studies were described. Results: Overall, 3708 publications were identifed, 64 full-text publications were read and 16 were included for data extraction. One study evaluated personalised surveillance. Various personalised aftercare interventions and outcomes were studied. Most common elements included in personalised aftercare plans were treatment summaries (75%), follow-up guidelines (56%), lists of available supportive care resources (38%) and PROs (25%). Control conditions mostly comprised usual care. Four out of seven (57%) studies reported improvements in quality of life following personalisation. Six studies (38%) found no personalisation efect, for multiple outcomes assessed (e.g. distress, satisfaction). One (6.3%) study was judged as low, four (25%) as high risk of bias and 11 (68.8%) as with concerns. Conclusion: The included studies varied in interventions, measurement instruments and outcomes, making it impossible to draw conclusions on the efectiveness of personalised follow-up. There is a need for a definition of both personalised surveillance and aftercare, whereafter outcomes can be measured according to uniform standards.
Purpose: This study aimed to develop and pretest a systematic conversation approach for nurses to tailor aftercare to oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Methods: We used an iterative developmental process for complex interventions: 1. Identifying problems 2. Identifying overall objectives 3. Designing the intervention 4. Pretesting and adapting the intervention. Results: The main results of the problem identification were: non-systematic and incomplete screening of potential issues, caveats in providing information, and shared decision-making. The overall objective formulated was: To develop a model for aftercare conversations based on shared goal-setting and decision-making. The conversation approach consists of four phases: 1. Preparation of the consultation including a questionnaire, 2. Shared goal-setting by means of a tool visualizing domains of life, and 3. Shared care planning by means of an overview of possible choices in aftercare, a database with health care professionals and a cancer survivorship care plan. 4. Evaluation. The results of the pretest revealed that the conversation approach needs to be flexible and tailored to the patient and practice setting, and embedded in the care processes. The conversation approach was perceived as enhancing patient-centeredness and leading to more in-depth consultations. Conclusion: The conversation approach was developed in co-creation with stakeholders. The results of the pretest revealed important implications and suggestions for implementation in routine care. The aftercare conversation approach can be used by nurses to provide tailored patient-centered evidence-based aftercare. Tailored aftercare should support oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Further tailoring is needed.
