Purpose The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design aims to overcome problems faced in conventional RCTs. We evaluated the TwiCs design when estimating the effect of exercise on quality of life (QoL)... Show morePurpose The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design aims to overcome problems faced in conventional RCTs. We evaluated the TwiCs design when estimating the effect of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and fatigue in inactive breast cancer survivors. Methods UMBRELLA Fit was conducted within the prospective UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. Patients provided consent for future randomization at cohort entry. We randomized inactive patients 12-18 months after cohort enrollment. The intervention group (n = 130) was offered a 12-week supervised exercise intervention. The control group (n = 130) was not informed and received usual care. Six-month exercise effects on QoL and fatigue as measured in the cohort were analyzed with intention-to-treat (ITT), instrumental variable (IV), and propensity scores (PS) analyses. Results Fifty-two percent (n = 68) of inactive patients accepted the intervention. Physical activity increased in patients in the intervention group, but not in the control group. We found no benefit of exercise for dimensions of QoL (ITT difference global QoL: 0.8, 95% CI = - 2.2; 3.8) and fatigue, except for a small beneficial effect on physical fatigue (ITT difference: - 1.1, 95% CI = - 1.8; - 0.3; IV: - 1.9, 95% CI = - 3.3; - 0.5, PS: - 1.2, 95% CI = - 2.3; - 0.2). Conclusion TwiCs gave insight into exercise intervention acceptance: about half of inactive breast cancer survivors accepted the offer and increased physical activity levels. The offer resulted in no improvement on QoL, and a small beneficial effect on physical fatigue. Show less
Background The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific... Show moreBackground The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2-17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR](wks2-8): 2.04, ORwks9-11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (ORwks12-13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (ORwks14-17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (ORwks9-11: 0.59, ORwks12-13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (ORwks14-17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (ORwks2-8: 1.23, ORwks9-11: 1.92, ORwks12-13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2-8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes. Show less
Gal, R.; Monninkhof, E.M.; Gils, C.H. van; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Bongard, D.H.J.G. van den; Peeters, P.H.M.; ... ; May, A.M. 2019
Objectives: The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design is an alternative for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and might overcome disadvantages such as difficult recruitment, dropout... Show moreObjectives: The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design is an alternative for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and might overcome disadvantages such as difficult recruitment, dropout after randomization to control, and contamination. We investigated the applicability of the TwiCs design in an exercise oncology study regarding the recruitment process, representativeness of the study sample, contamination, participation, and dropout.Methods: The Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion (UMBRELLA) Fit TwiCs evaluates an exercise intervention in inactive breast cancer patients. Eligible patients participating in the prospective UMBRELLA were identified and randomized. Patients randomized to the intervention (n = 130) were offered the intervention, whereas controls (n = 130) were not informed.Results: Fifty-two percent (n = 68) accepted the intervention. Because this rate was lower than expected, a larger sample size was required than initially estimated (n = 166). However, recruitment of 260 patients was still completed by one researcher within 30 months. Unselective eligibility screening and randomization before invitation improved representativeness. Disadvantage of the design might be inclusion of ineligible patients when cohort information is limited. Furthermore, the design faced higher noncompliance in the intervention group, but prevention of contamination.Conclusion: The TwiCs design improved logistics in recruitment and prevented contamination, but noncompliance due to refusal of the intervention was higher compared with conventional pragmatic exercise oncology RCTs, which may dilute the estimated intervention effect. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
