No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting.Methods/designThis paper concerns a pre-implementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national conferences. Findings will be used to finalise a multi-faceted implementation strategy to test the implementation of SDM and a patient decision aid in terms of cost-effectiveness, in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).Study registration numberNTR4879.

Several independent randomized controlled trials are initiated to investigate whether sentinel lymph node biopsy can be safely omitted in clinically node negative breast cancer patients with negative axillary ultrasound findings, who are treated with breast conserving therapy. A consequence of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy is absence of pathological lymph node status information. We aimed to investigate the impact of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy on adjuvant systemic treatment recommendations. Data from all consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer and negative axillary ultrasound findings treated with breast conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy between 2008 and 2012 were collected from a prospective database. Two methods, Adjuvant! Online and the Dutch breast cancer guideline 2012, were used to determine the adjuvant systemic treatment recommendations of every patient. At first, each patient was considered to be lymph node negative, and secondly the patients' true pathological lymph node status was used. A total of 303 patients were consecutively included. Pathological lymph node status was pN0 in 72.3 %, pN0(i+) in 12.9 %, pN1mi+ in 5.6 %, pN1 in 7.3 %, and pN2 in 2.0 % of the patients. The decision to recommend adjuvant systemic treatment changed due to the pathological lymph node status in 1.0 % of the patients (3/303) when using Adjuvant! Online and in 3.6 % (11/303) when using the 2012 Dutch breast cancer guideline. The impact of the pathological lymph node status on adjuvant systemic treatment recommendations in clinically node negative breast cancer patients with negative axillary ultrasound findings treated with breast conserving therapy is limited. The safety of omitting the sentinel lymph node biopsy should be confirmed by the initiated randomized controlled trials.

The objective of this article is to assess the impact of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction on self-esteem and to analyze the correlation between aesthetic outcome and self-esteem. Global self-esteem was evaluated using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 31 patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstructions. A study-specific questionnaire and photographic evaluation were used by the patient, the plastic surgeon, and the oncological surgeon to measure satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome. Patients' satisfaction and self-esteem were analyzed for any existing correlation. Overall patients' satisfaction had a mean score of 6.55 (range, 0-10) on the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire. A mean score of 32.48 (range, 10-40) was found on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. More than 80% of patients were content with their decision to undergo this procedure and would recommend this to a friend. Surgeons tended to rate the aesthetic outcome better than patients. Patients' satisfaction and self-esteem were found to be positively correlated. Patients are generally content with the outcome of primary DIEP flap breast reconstruction. The favorable aesthetic result of this procedure has a beneficial effect on patients' self-esteem.