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 overall 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.

As the number of curatively treated breast cancer patients grows and the burden on healthcare increases, effective use of methods to detect recurrences is becoming more important. This systematic review aims to examine the added value of physical examination (PE) in addition to mammography for breast cancer recurrence detection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. Observational studies including women with a primary diagnosis of invasive or in situ breast cancer without metastases, which reported method of detection for locoregional recurrences (LRRs), and in which PE was defined as examination by a healthcare provider in an asymptomatic patient were included. Quality was assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool. Nine studies were included with data on 14,406 women, 613 LRRs and 349 secondary primary breast cancers. Of the total LRRs, 46.3% were detected by patients, 23.3% by mammography, and 14.8% by PE. PE detected 11% of the LRRs in patients who had breast conserving surgery and 28% of the LRRs in mastectomy patients. PE detected 7.1% of the contralateral breast cancers and 18.8% of ipsilateral lymph node recurrences, compared to 43.9% and 29.2% by mammography. PE detected a LRR in 0.6% of the patients (91/14,406) and mammography in 1.5% of the patients (143/9614). For detection of breast cancer recurrences, PE is of limited added value alongside mammography and self-detection, although it seems more beneficial for mastectomy patients. Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of the most efficient interval for PE across different patient groups.

Aftercare for curatively treated breast cancer patients includes support and information provision. As patients differ in their needs, personalization of aftercare is advocated, but clear guidelines on how to achieve personalization are currently missing. This study investigates patients' preferences regarding assessment of care needs and information provision. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 breast cancer patients (15 female, 3 male) who received aftercare for at least three months in five Dutch hospitals. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Several patients perceived current aftercare as too intensive or too little, therefore they preferred to discuss their needs beforehand with their health care provider to align aftercare with their needs. Patients preferred more attention to needs on the domains of social and emotional wellbeing and return to work. Patients preferred a comprehensive resource of information on potential (late) effects of cancer and its treatment and of available support options, enabling them to self-manage the dosage and timing of desired information. Patients had positive expectations about an aftercare plan, as it would provide a better overview of their care needs, support options and agreements about the aftercare trajectory. To facilitate personalization in aftercare, information and care needs should be better addressed and summarized in an aftercare plan. Patients and healthcare practitioners should create the aftercare plan together in shared decision-making. A supporting tool is needed to improve assessment of care needs on multiple domains, to provide layered information and facilitate use of aftercare plans.

Aftercare plans can support breast cancer patients’ self-management after curative treatment but are often not personalized and limitedly applied by healthcare practitioners (HCPs). This study aimed to develop a tool integrating information provision and assessment of patients’ goals and needs, to support the creation and application of a personalized aftercare plan. A multidisciplinary workgroup guided the development by defining the target audience, scope and purpose. Needs of 18 patients and 15 HCPs were assessed to determine the tool’s content and format. Usability tests of a prototype among 7 patients and 10 HCPs informed improvements and finalization. The tool, called ‘Breast Cancer Aftercare Decision Aid’ (BC-ADA), provides information on potential effects of cancer and support options on five domains: physical wellbeing, emotions, relationships, regaining trust and return to daily routine. Patients can indicate which domain(s) they wish to improve, what resources they have and where additional help is needed. Based on their answers, patients can create an aftercare plan together with the HCP, including personal goals, specific actions and agreements on follow-up. Usability and acceptability were positively evaluated by both patients and HCPs. The BC-ADA seems promising in supporting personalized aftercare decision-making and is currently being tested in the NABOR-study in Dutch hospitals.