Author:
van Maaren Marissa C.,van Hoeve Jolanda C.,Korevaar Joke C.,van Hezewijk Marjan,Siemerink Ester J. M.,Zeillemaker Anneke M.,Klaassen-Dekker Anneleen,van Uden Dominique J. P.,Volders José H.,Drossaert Constance H. C.,Siesling Sabine, ,van Maaren Marissa C.,Retel Valesca P.,Knottnerus Bart,van Leeuwen-Stok Elise,Guerrero-Paez Cristina,Burgers Jako S.,Zeillemaker Anneke M.,Peeters Marie-Jeanne T. F. D. Vrancken,van Hezewijk Marjan,Siemerink Ester J. M.,Honkoop Aafke H.,Veltman Jeroen,Mann Ritse,Wiegersma Jannet,Claassen Saskia,van der Lee Marije L.,van Uden-Kraan Cornelia F.,Korevaar J. C.,van Korevaar M.,Siemerink E.,Zeillemaker A. M.,Klaassen-Dekker A.,Drossaert C. H. C.,Siesling S. C.
Abstract
Abstract
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-)effectiveness 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 identified, 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 effect, 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 effectiveness 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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC