No abstract

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Design: A 29-item questionnaire on professionals' demographics, current practice, opinion on the current guideline, preferences in frequency and duration of tailored followup, and the purpose and perceived effects of follow-up was sent to 633 Dutch professionals.Results: The current national guideline is followed by 81% of respondents. All different specialists are involved in follow-up. Sixty-nine percent of respondents' report nurse practitioners to be involved in follow-up. When asked for tailored follow-up, professionals indicate more factors for increased follow-up (age<40 years, pT3-4 tumour, pN2-3, treatment related morbidity, and psychosocial support), than for reduced schedules (age >70 years and DCIS histology). Alternative forms of follow-up are not endorsed by >90% of respondents. Detection of a new primary tumour of the breast is considered the most important purpose of follow-up (98%), 57% still indicates detecting metastases as a goal.Conclusions: Professionals tend towards longer and more intensive follow-up than the current guideline for a large group of patients. Limitations and developments in follow-up need to be considered to facilitate alternative follow-up strategies.3

, et al.. Patients' needs and preferences in routine follow-up for early breast cancer; an evaluation of the changing role of the nurse practitioner. EJSO -European Journal of Surgical Oncology, WB Saunders, 2011, 37 (9) This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Purpose To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches. Methods Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples. Results Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74–0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65–0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77–0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created. Conclusions INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancer patients.

Objective Unmet health care needs require additional care resources to achieve optimal patient well‐being. In this nationwide study we examined associations between a number of risk factors and unmet needs after treatment among women with breast cancer, while taking into account their health care practices. We expected that more care use would be associated with lower levels of unmet needs. Methods A multicenter, prospective, observational design was employed. Women with primary breast cancer completed questionnaires 6 and 15 months post‐diagnosis. Medical data were retrieved from medical records. Direct and indirect associations between sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, distress, care use, and unmet needs were investigated with structural equation modeling. Results Seven hundred forty‐six participants completed both questionnaires (response rate 73.7%). The care services received were not negatively associated with the reported levels of unmet needs after treatment. Comorbidity was associated with higher physical and daily living needs. Higher age was associated with higher health system‐related and informational needs. Having had chemotherapy and a mastectomy were associated with higher sexuality needs and breast cancer‐specific issues, respectively. A higher level of distress was associated with higher levels of unmet need in all domains. Conclusions Clinicians may use these results to timely identify which women are at risk of developing specific unmet needs after treatment. Evidence‐based, cost‐effective (online) interventions that target distress, the most influential risk factor, should be further implemented and disseminated among patients and clinicians.