The reliability of self-reported treatment data is unclear. Therefore 350 (58% response) breast cancer patients completed a questionnaire to compare self-reported data with data from medical records. Agreement was good for type of surgery, receiving chemotherapy, endocrine and radiation therapy. Only moderate agreement was seen for sentinel node biopsy, pathological results an axillary lymph node dissection. Objectives: Medical records are considered the gold standard for accurate treatment information. However, treatment data are increasingly obtained from questionnaires. It can be questioned whether self-reported treatment data are reliable, particularly because patients have to process a lot of information during their diagnosis and treatment process. The present study assesses the reliability of self-reported treatment data compared with medical records. Methods: All patients with stage I, II, and III breast cancer (n = 606) in 5 hospitals in the west of the Netherlands were invited to complete a questionnaire 9 to 18 months after surgery. We calculated kappa statistics, proportion correct, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values to assess agreement. Results: Three hundred fifty patients completed the questionnaire (58%). Agreement was good for type of surgery and receiving chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation therapy, with sensitivity and specificity of 95% or higher and kappa above 0.90. However, only moderate agreement was seen for sentinel node biopsy, including the pathologic results and axillary lymph node dissection (kappa between 0.60 and 0.80). Lack of agreement was more often found for patients who had received endocrine therapy (odds ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.10) but not influenced by age (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.02). Conclusion: Accuracy of self-reported data is high for type of surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation therapy, but much lower for sentinel node biopsy including the pathologic results and axillary lymph node dissection. This is relevant for clinicians given the time spent explaining these procedures, and for researchers to help decide what information to obtain from patients or medical records.@en

Introduction: Given increasing numbers of breast cancer survivors, there is an increased focus on quality of life and quality of care. This study aims to investigate whether clinical or patient reported outcomes are most important for perceived quality of care by breast cancer patients. Methods: Overall, 606 patients aged 18 years or older, who underwent breast cancer surgery 9-18 months ago in five hospitals in the Netherlands, were invited to complete an internet-based questionnaire. Patients were asked to judge a random selection of 24 patient profiles and choose which of 2 presented patients had received the best quality of care, using conjoint analysis. The individual relative importance (RI) for each outcome was estimated using Hierarchical Bayes Estimation, and averaged over all patients to assess which outcomes were most important. Results: Complete data were available for 350 patients (58%). Avoiding severe breast symptoms was most important for good quality of care according to patients (RI 23.22 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 22.32-24.12]), followed by a 2 year longer disease free survival (18.30 [17.38-19.22]). However, the importance differed by age: younger patients (<50 years) assigned higher importance to longer disease free survival (21.99 [19.52-24.46]) than older patients (65 + years) (15.03 [13.88-16.18]). Conclusion: Avoiding severe breast symptoms rather than 2 year longer disease free survival is considered most important in our population of breast cancer patients for evaluation of quality of care. These data should thus be included in both information provision prior to treatment choices and post treatment quality of care evaluation.@en