1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.c.vanmaaren@utwente.nl
                Journal
                Support Care Cancer
                Support Care Cancer
                Supportive Care in Cancer
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0941-4355
                1433-7339
                2 May 2024
                2 May 2024
                2024
                : 32
                : 5
                : 323
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, ( https://ror.org/006hf6230) P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), ( https://ror.org/03g5hcd33) Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [3 ]Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), ( https://ror.org/015xq7480) Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [4 ]The Hague University of Applied Sciences, ( https://ror.org/021zvq422) The Hague, the Netherlands
                [5 ]Institution for Radiation Oncology, Arnhem, the Netherlands
                [6 ]GRID grid.417370.6, ISNI 0000 0004 0502 0983, Department of Internal Medicine, , ZGT, ; Hengelo, the Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Surgery, Alrijne Hospital, ( https://ror.org/017rd0q69) Leiden, the Netherlands
                [8 ]GRID grid.413327.0, ISNI 0000 0004 0444 9008, Department of Surgery, , Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, ; Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                [9 ]GRID grid.413681.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0631 9258, Department of Surgery, , Diakonessenhuis, ; Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [10 ]Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, ( https://ror.org/006hf6230) Enschede, the Netherlands
                Article
                8530
                10.1007/s00520-024-08530-2
                11065941
                38695938
                6119708f-9bb1-4603-aade-c15e33b31048
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 November 2023
                : 27 April 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001826, ZonMw;
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award ID: 10330032010001
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                personalised follow-up,breast cancer,surveillance,aftercare
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                personalised follow-up, breast cancer, surveillance, aftercare

                Comments

                Comment on this article