Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients are almost always treated to minimize the symptom burden, and to prolong life without a curative intent. Although the prognosis of MBC patients has improved in recent years, the median survival after diagnosis is still only 3 years. Therefore, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should play a leading role in making treatment decisions. Heterogeneity in questionnaires used to evaluate the HRQoL in MBC patients complicates the interpretability and comparability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) globally. In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of PRO instruments used in real-world MBC patients and to discuss important issues in measuring HRQoL. Routinely collecting symptom information using PROs could enhance treatment evaluation and shared decision-making. Standardizing these measures might help to improve the implementation of PROs, and facilitates collecting and sharing data to establish valid comparisons in research. This is a prerequisite to learn about how they could impact the clinical care pathway. In addition, the prognostic value of intensified PRO collection throughout therapy on survival and disease progression is promising. Future perspectives in the field of PROs and MBC are described.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the care-related quality of life in caregivers of breast cancer patients, to assess its association with breast cancer patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to identify its potential predictors. Methods: Caregivers of breast cancer patients at six and twelve months follow up were identified through the institutes electronic patient reported outcome measurement collection tool. The Care-related Quality of Life Instrument (CarerQoL) was used to obtain CarerQoL utility scores by applying a pre-existent set of Dutch tariffs and the CarerQoL VAS score, which represented the overall happiness of caregivers. The associations between breast cancer patients’ EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 scores and caregivers’ CarerQoL scores was determined with Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Associations between log transformed CarerQol scores and patient and caregiver characteristics were analyzed with multivariable linear regression analyses. Results: A total of 116 completed CarerQoL questionnaires were analyzed. Most caregivers were male spouses or partners (81.4%) with a mean age of 55.7 ± 16.4. The median CarerQoL utility score was 92.4/100 and median CarerQoL VAS was 8.0/10. We found weak correlations between CarerQoL VAS scores and patients’ EQ-5D-5L utility score (0.301, p = 0.002) and EQ VAS score (0.251, p = 0.009), and between EORTC QLQ-C30 scores and CarerQol VAS (0.339, p < 0.001) and utility score (0.236, p = 0.015). There was a negative association between chemotherapy and log-transformed CarerQoL utility score (B = − 0.063, p = 0.001) and VAS score (B = − 0.044, p = 0.038) at six months follow-up. Conclusions: This study provides the first evaluation of the CarerQoL in caregivers of Dutch breast cancer patients. Caregivers’ happiness was associated with breast cancer patients’ HRQoL. Our results can be used as reference values for future care-related quality of life evaluations. Plain English Summary: Breast cancer patients face many difficulties during their cancer journey and often need the support of their caregivers. Despite the fact that successfully providing informal care can have positive effects on caregivers’ wellbeing, it may also have a negative impact on their quality of life. Monitoring the quality of life using a standardized questionnaire, such as the CarerQoL questionnaire, may result in early detection of possible quality of life issues. In this study, we evaluated 116 caregivers and found overall high CarerQoL scores. The scores showed a positive relation to the patients’ quality of life. Lower CarerQoL scores at six months after surgery were found in caregivers of patients who received chemotherapy. Our research underlines the importance to include caregivers of breast cancer patients in clinical practice, provides reference values for future research, and the results can be used to manage the caregivers’ expectations prior to treatment.

Purpose: As life expectancy continues to rise, post-treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of breast cancer patients becomes increasingly important. This study examined the one-year longitudinal relation between axillary treatments and physical, psychosocial, and sexual wellbeing and arm symptoms. Methods: Women diagnosed with breast cancer who received different axillary treatments being axilla preserving surgery (APS) with or without axillary radiotherapy or full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with or without axillary radiotherapy were included. HRQoL was assessed at baseline, 6- and 12-months postoperatively using the BREAST-Q and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-BR23). Mixed regression models were constructed to assess the impact of axillary treatment on HRQoL. HRQoL at baseline was compared to HRQoL at 6- and at 12-months postoperatively. Results: In total, 552 patients were included in the mixed regressions models. Except for ALND with axillary radiotherapy, no significant differences in physical and psychosocial wellbeing were found. Physical wellbeing decreased significantly between baseline and 6- and 12-months postoperatively (p < 0.001, p = 0.035) and psychosocial wellbeing decreased significantly between baseline and 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.028) for ALND with axillary radiotherapy compared to APS alone. Arm symptoms increased significantly between baseline and 6 months and between baseline and 12 months postoperatively for APS with radiotherapy (12.71, 13.73) and for ALND with radiotherapy (13.93, 16.14), with the lowest increase in arm symptoms for ALND without radiotherapy (6.85, 7.66), compared to APS alone (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Physical and psychosocial wellbeing decreased significantly for ALND with radiotherapy compared to APS alone. Shared decision making and expectation management pre-treatment could be strengthened by discussing arm symptoms per axillary treatment with the patient.

Purpose: Normative utility scores represent the health related quality of life of the general population, are of utmost importance in cost-effectiveness studies and should reflect relevant sexes and age groups. The aim of this study was to estimate EQ-5D-5L normative utility scores in a population of Dutch females, stratified by age, and to compare these scores to those of female populations of three other countries. Methods: Dutch women completed the EQ-5D-5L online between January and July 2020. Mean normative utilities were computed using the Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set, stratified by age, tested for differences using the Kruskall–Wallis test, and compared to normative utility scores of female populations elsewhere. Additionally, to support the use of the Dutch EQ-5D-5L data in other settings, normative utility scores were also calculated by applying the value sets of Germany, United Kingdom and USA. Results: Data of 9037 women were analyzed and the weighted mean utility score was 0.911 (SD 0.155, 95% CI 0.908–0.914). The mean normative utility scores differed between age groups, showing lower scores in older females. Compared to other normative utility scores of female populations, Dutch mean utilities were consistently higher except for age groups 18–24 and 25–34. With the three country-specific value sets, new age-specific mean normative utility scores were provided. Conclusion: This study provides mean normative utility scores of a large cohort of Dutch females per age group, which were found to be lower in older age groups. Utility scores calculated with three other value sets were made available.

In breast cancer research, utility assumptions are outdated and inconsistent which may affect the results of quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculations and thereby cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Four hundred sixty four female patients with breast cancer treated at Erasmus MC, the Netherlands, completed EQ-5D-5L questionnaires from diagnosis throughout their treatment. Average utilities were calculated stratified by age and treatment. These utilities were applied in CEAs analysing 920 breast cancer screening policies differing in eligible ages and screening interval simulated by the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of euro20,000. The CEAs included varying sets on normative, breast cancer treatment and screening and follow-up utilities. Efficiency frontiers were compared to assess the impact of the utility sets. The calculated average patient utilities were reduced at breast cancer diagnosis and 6 months after surgery and increased toward normative utilities 12 months after surgery. When using normative utility values of 1 in CEAs, QALYs were overestimated compared to using average gender and age-specific values. Only small differences in QALYs gained were seen when varying treatment utilities in CEAs. The CEAs varying screening and follow-up utilities showed only small changes in QALYs gained and the efficiency frontier. Throughout all variations in utility sets, the optimal strategy remained robust; biennial for ages 40-76 years and occasionally biennial 40-74 years. In sum, we recommend to use gender and age stratified normative utilities in CEAs, and patient-based breast cancer utilities stratified by age and treatment or disease stage. Furthermore, despite varying utilities, the optimal screening scenario seems very robust. Utility scores facilitate calculations of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which represent a measure of the value of health outcomes. With regard to breast cancer, however, utility scores are inconsistent, with consequences for QALY evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). In our study, new utility values for breast cancer treatment were determined at different time points and stratified by different measures. Evaluation shows that normative utilities stratified by age and gender most reflected real-world situations and were therefore most meaningful for CEA. Likewise, patient-based breast cancer quality-of-life parameters stratified by age and treatment or by disease stage were most appropriate for CEA. image

Introduction Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. Methods and analysis This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020–0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Trial registration number NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.gov