Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. doi: 10.2478/raon-2023-0019 211 research article Changes in the quality of life of early breast cancer patients and comparison with the normative Slovenian population Cvetka Grasic Kuhar 1,2 , Tjasa Gortnar Cepeda 3 , Christian Kurzeder 4 , Marcus Vetter 5 1 Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Department Medical Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 Jesenice General Hospital, Jesenice, Slovenia 4 Breast Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland 5 Cancer Center Baselland, Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Received 27 November 2022 Accepted 26 December 2022 Correspondence to: Assist. Prof. Cvetka Grašič Kuhar, M.D., Ph.D., Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: cgrasic@onko-i.si Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). Background. We aimed to identify changes in quality of life after breast cancer treatment and compare them with the normative population data for the Slovenian population. Patients and methods. A prospective, single-group, cohort design was used. A total of 102 early breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana were included. Of those, 71% returned the questionnaires after one-year post-chemotherapy. The Slovenian versions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and BR23 questionnaires were used. Primary outcomes were a com- parison of global health status/quality of life (GHS) and C30 Summary Score (C30-SumSc) at baseline and one-year post-chemotherapy with the normative Slovenian population. The exploratory analysis evaluated the differences in symptoms and functional scales of QLQ C-30 and QLQ BR-23 between baseline and one-year post-chemotherapy. Results. At baseline and one-year post-chemotherapy, C30-SumSc of patients was lower than the predicted C30-SumSc from the normative Slovenian population by 2.6 points (p = 0.04) and 6.5 points (p < 0.001), resp. On the contrary, GHS was not statistically different from predicted either at baseline or after one year. Exploratory analysis revealed that one-year post-chemotherapy compared to the beginning of chemotherapy, patients had statistically significantly and clinically meaningful lower scores in body image and cognitive functioning, and increased symptom scores for pain, fatigue, and arm symptoms. Conclusions. The C30-SumSc is reduced one- year post-chemotherapy. Early interventions should be directed to- ward the prevention of the decline of cognitive functioning and body image, and to alleviate fatigue, pain, and arm symptoms. Key words: breast cancer; chemotherapy; quality of life; cognitive dysfunction; fatigue Introduction Global cancer statistics for 2020 estimated 2,261,419 new cases of breast cancer worldwide, which rep- resents 11.7% of all cancers. It became the most common cancer in humans, surpassing lung can- cer incidence. 1 Breast cancer survivors represent a large group of long-term cancer survivors with different health issues during and after treatment. According to Slovenian Cancer Registry data in 2019, breast cancer survivors (19.455), represent 14.3% of all cancer survivors (136.500). 2 Half of the Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 212 Slovenian breast cancer cases are diagnosed in women in the 20–65 age group, which means they are active in their professional careers and family life. Patients with early breast cancer receive multi- modal cancer treatment (surgical and/or systemic treatment including chemotherapy, targeted ther- apy, and endocrine therapy, and/or radiotherapy). The treatment they receive greatly affects their quality of life (QoL). For example, surgery and radiation therapy could cause local side effects, like breast and arm pain, and arm lymphoedema, however, systemic therapy could have numerous acute or long-lasting systemic side effects (nausea, neuropathy, cardiotoxicity, fatigue, cognitive dys- function etc.). Thus, comprehensive cancer therapy affects many functional or symptom scales of QoL. However, families and employers expect patients to recover fully in a short time. Nowadays, QoL becomes also more and more important in terms of drug development. With the validated quality of life questionnaires (QLQ), spe- cifically the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core ques- tionnaire (QLQ C30) and breast module (QLQ BR23) 3,4 , we can monitor the impact of treatment on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), like global health status/QoL and summary score, and com- pare different modules and symptoms over time. 5 What is the QoL at the transition from treatment to survivorship where a woman is expected to be back to work? Arm symptoms and fatigue, as well as cognitive and physical dysfunction and work-related variables (e.g., physical demands at work), interfered with the ability to perform work. Schmidt et al. found associations between depres- sive symptoms, arm symptoms, lower education, and younger age with an impaired return to work after one year. 6 Self-reported reasons that hinder the return to work were fatigue and cognitive problems. 6,7 Additionally, social and personal fac- tors influence the functioning and working ability of individuals. Identifying dysfunctions that disable patients after breast cancer treatment and comparing QoL of patients with the normative population data 8,9 could help caregivers provide survivors with more optimal care. They may benefit from specific in- terventions. The aim of our study was to prospectively eval- uate PROs in the cohort of early breast cancer pa- tients at the start of chemotherapy and one year af- ter the end of chemotherapy and to compare them with normative data for the Slovenian population. In our explorative analysis, we aimed to determine which functional and symptom scales appeared different one year after chemotherapy. Patients and methods Participants Our current study cohort consisted of early breast cancer patients including all subtypes who had taken part in our previous prospective non-rand- omized cohort study evaluating the impact of mo- bile app use for symptom management on PROs during chemotherapy treatment. The inclusion criteria in the aforementioned study were patients with early breast cancer, treated with chemothera- py, possessing an Android-based smartphone for symptom reporting, and willing to fill in paper and pencil questionnaires reporting their quality of life while receiving treatment. 10 In the current prospective study, we included 102 patients who had signed informed consent for the former study and were willing to fill in the ad- ditional QLQ C30, QLQ BR23, and socioeconomic questionnaires one year after the end of chemo- therapy. Our first aim was to evaluate and com- pare pre-treatment and post-treatment PROs with normative data for the Slovenian population. 11 This reference data on QLQ-C30 dimensions was obtained on 1231 healthy Slovenian individuals. Our second aim was to compare the post-treat- ment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the pre-treatment one. This data has not been re- ported yet. Study design A prospective, single-group, cohort design was used combining data from a former two-arm trial with new follow-up data collected one year after the end of chemotherapy. 10 Patients who were ad- mitted for treatment with chemotherapy at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana between December 2017 and September 2018 were eligible (Figure 1). Inclusion criteria were breast cancer stage I-III, treatment with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemo- therapy, and proficiency in using an Android- based smartphone. Exclusion criteria were stage IV breast cancer, a lack of mobile device proficiency or using non-Android-based smartphones, and not understanding Slovenian. In addition to chemo- therapy treatment, patients were treated with anti- HER2 therapy (in case of HER2 positivity), surgery, endocrine therapy in case of hormone-receptor- Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 213 positive disease, according to ESMO guidelines, and radiation therapy, if indicated. 12 The patient’s demographic characteristics and type of treatment were collected from patient charts. Ethical approv- al for this study had been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana (ERID-EK-43 and ERID-EK-0080/2019). All patients had given their written informed consent. Instruments We used the Slovenian version of EORTC QLQ C30 and QLQ BR23 questionnaires. QLQ C30 is a core questionnaire which includes 30 items, consisting of 5 functional scales (cognitive, emotional, physi- cal, social and role functioning), 9 symptom scales, and two questions which include the patient’s assessment of global health status/quality of life (GHS). QLQ BR23 has 23 questions comprising four functional scales (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspectives) and symp- toms regarding the treatment of breast cancer (sys- temic therapy side effects, arm and breast symp- toms and others). Socio-economic questionnaires, used routinely for surveys at the Slovenian Cancer Registry, included questions about age, gender, so- cial class, employment, marital status, education, and place of residence. Outcome measures Our primary outcomes were GHS and C30 Summary Score (C30-SumSc), derived from EORTC QLQ C30. Symptoms and functional scales of QLQ C30 and QLQ BR23 were used in the ex- ploratory analysis only. The EORTC Quality of Life Approached: 140 patients Excluded: 36 patients -12 not smartphone users -14 unsupportive platform -10 not interested in the study Filled-in baseline questionnaires: 104 patients Excluded: 2 patients (metastatic disease) Cohort at beginning of chemotherapy: 102 Cohort at 1 year after chemotherapy: 72 Did not return questionnaires at 1 year: 25 patients Assessment of baseline global health status/QoL and Summary Score Assessment of global health status/QoL, Summary Score and explorative analysis at 1 year FIGURE 1. Consort diagram. Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 214 Scoring Manual was followed. 13 All scales had val- ues from 0 to 100, where 100 represented the best GHS, the best functioning, or the worst symptoms. The C30-SumSc, which ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), was calculated from 13 out of 15 EORTC QLQ C30 scales (the GHS and financial difficulties scale were excluded) in accordance with Giesinger et al. and instructions from the EORTC. 5,14 The pa- tient’s assessment of the clinical significance of changes in QLQ C30 and QLQ BR23 scores were interpreted as “slight” change either for better or for worse when the mean change in scores was about 5 to 10 points; “moderate” change for about 10 to 20 points; and “severe” change greater than 20 points. An established threshold for a clinically meaningful difference in QoL was previously set to 10 points. 15 Data for GHS and C30-SumSc data for the nor- mative Slovenian population were obtained from recently published work by Velenik et al. 11 We com- puted each patient’s predicted normative values for C30-SumSc and GHS (co-primary outcomes) according to this external reference. 11 Using the patient’s age (categorized as 18‒39, 49‒59, 60+) and self-rated social class (lower, middle, higher), the predicted normative value represented the pa- tient’s scores if she had not had cancer. Statistical analysis Categorical variables were summarized with fre- quencies and percentages. Numerical variables were described with means and standard devia- tions (or medians and interquartile ranges if dis- tributions were asymmetric). We compared the mean C30-SumSc and GHS of our patients with the normative general Slovenian population. 11 The mean C30-SumSc and GHS at the start of chemotherapy and one-year post-chemo- therapy were compared with the corresponding mean of the normative values using two-tailed one-sample t-tests as the variability for the norma- tive values could not be considered (the normative values were computed from the estimates from the article, 11 standard errors of the estimates were not reported). As a part of the exploratory analysis, we per- formed a comparison of the GHS, C30-SumSc and QLQ C30 and QLQ BR23 scales between inclusion (start of chemotherapy) and after one year in a smaller group (72 patients) that had available data on both times. For statistical comparison of scales based on at least two questions, we calculated the average difference and 95% confidence intervals ([After 1 year] ‒ [At inclusion]) with two-tailed paired t-tests and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For scales based on one question, we performed Wilcoxon’s test of predicted ranks. For all scales but C30-SumSc and GHS (pri- mary outcomes), the corresponding p-values were adjusted using the Holm method to control the family-wise error rate as so many hypotheses were tested. Corrected p-values allow a conclusion per population, but uncorrected ones do not. An (adjusted) p-value smaller than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using R statistical software (version 3.6.3) 16 and SPSS v.24.0 (IBM Corporation). TABLE 1. Clinical characteristics of participants at beginning of the study and after one-year post-chemotherapy Characteristic At inclusion-before chemotherapy (n = 102) n (%) One year after end of chemotherapy (n = 71) n (%) Tumour stage T1 T2 T3 6 (45.1) 43 (42.2) 13 (12.7) 32 (44.4) 33 (45.8) 7 (9.7) Lymph node stage N0 N1 N2 N3 43 (42.2) 38 (37.3) 12 (11.8) 9 (8.8) 31 (43.1) 30 (41.7) 9 (12.5) 2 (2.8) Tumour subtype Luminal A-like Luminal B-like Luminal B HER2 positive HER2 positive Triple-negative 12 (11.8) 47 (46.1) 19 (18.6) 8 (7.8) 16 (15.7) 7 (9.7) 35 (48.6) 14 (19.4) 6 (8.3) 10 (13.9) Type of surgery Breast-conserving surgery + Sentinel node biopsy Breast-conserving surgery + Axillary dissection Mastectomy + Sentinel node biopsy Mastectomy + Axillary dissection 37 (36.3) 14 (13.7) 23 (22.5) 28 (27.5) 28 (38.9) 11 (15.3) 15 (20.8) 18 (25.0) Breast reconstruction None Deep inferior flap Tissue expander, followed by silicone implant 78 (76.5) 13 (12.7) 11 (10.8) 55 (76.4) 10 (13.9) 7 (9.7) Chemotherapy type Anthracyclines and taxanes Anthracyclines only Taxanes only CMF 70 (68.7) 19 (18.6) 10 (9.8) 3 (2.9) 51 (70.8) 13 (18.1) 6 (8.3) 2 (2.8) Anti-HER2 therapy 27 (26.4) 20 (27.8) Adjuvant endocrine therapy 78 (76.5) 57 (79.2) Radiotherapy 81 (79.4) 59 (81.9) CMF = cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil; HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 215 Results Participants At the beginning of chemotherapy, we included 102 patients (Table 1, left column). These patients were compared with the normative Slovenian pop- ulation regarding baseline GHS and C30-SumSc. Seventy-two patients (71%) returned question- naires at one-year post-chemotherapy (Table 1, right column). The median age of this cohort was 51.5 years. 44% of patients were T1 and 43% were node-negative. Regarding subtype, 49% were lu- minal B-like, 19% luminal HER2+, 8% HER2+ non- luminal, 14% were triple negative and 10% were luminal A-like. The most common type of surgery was breast-conserving surgery with sentinel node biopsy (39%). All patients were treated with chem- otherapy (adjuvant (69%) or neoadjuvant (31%)), 28% had anti-HER2 treatment, and 79% had adju- vant endocrine therapy. 82% of patients received adjuvant radiation therapy. Patients’ socioeconom- ic characteristics are available in Supplementary Table 1. For the calculation of predicted norma- tive values of GHS and C30-SumSc, gender, age, and social class were used, according to Velenik et al. 11 Their model was based on 1231 persons, of them 612 (49.7%) were females. The age distribu- tion of females was: 30.7% in cohort 18-39 years, 42.8% in cohort 40-59 years, and 26.5% in cohort 60-90 years. Self-rated social status of females was: 30.9% belonged to the lower, 57.4% to the middle, and 11.8% to the upper social class. 11 Primary outcomes At inclusion (before the start of chemotherapy), C30-SumSc of our patients was statistically sig- nificantly lower than the predicted C30-SumSc in the general Slovenian population, namely by 2.6 points (p = 0.04). After one year, compared to the start of chemotherapy, patients’ mean C30-SumSc decreased by 6.5 points, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001), from the patient perspec- tive as a slight change for worse, but not clinically meaningful change (Table 2, Figure 2 - first line). On the contrary, GHS was not statistically or clini- cally significantly different from predicted either at inclusion or after 1 year (Table 2, Figure 2 - sec- ond line). TABLE 2. Patient-reported outcomes presented by EORTC C30 Summary Score (C-30 SumSc) and global health status/quality of life (GHS) at inclusion (beginning of chemotherapy), one-year post-chemotherapy, and the difference among both times Predicted At inclusion At 1 year [1 year] - [At inclusion] n mean Mean (95% CI) p Mean (95% CI) p Mean (95% CI) p C-30 SumSc 70 90.9 88.5 (86.1, 90.8) 0.04 82 (78.4, 85.5) < 0.001 -6.5 (-9.6, -3.4) < 0.001 GHS 71 72.7 71.1 (66.7, 75.6) 0.50 69.6 (65, 74.2) 0.19 -1.5 (-6.6, 3.5) 0.55 EORTC = European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer BR-23 = breast module 23 questionnaire; EORTC: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer *Modules whose p-value is statistically significant (p < 0.05); FIGURE 2. Difference of the global health status/quality of life (GHS), C-30 Summary Score (C-30 SumSc), and functional and symptoms scales of EORTC C-30 and BR-23 questionnaires. Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 216 Exploratory analysis The exploratory analysis (Figure 2) revealed that patients had significantly lower functioning one year after chemotherapy compared to the begin- ning of chemotherapy in 3 functional scales: in body image and cognitive functioning, the dif- ference in our sample was > 10 points (clinically meaningful change), and in physical function- ing under 10 points (clinically not meaningful). Similarly, pain, fatigue, and arm symptoms score significantly increased by more than 10 points (clinically meaningful), and systemic therapy side effects increased by less than 10 points (clinically not meaningful). Discussion At the start of chemotherapy, early breast cancer patients had the same mean GHS as predicted from the general Slovenian population. C30-SumSc was statistically significantly lower, although this was not clinically significant since the difference was less than 10 points. GHS in breast cancer patients one year after the end of chemotherapy was on average as good as before the beginning of chemotherapy. C30-SumSc was statistically significantly worse, from the pa- tient’s perspective as a slight change for worse, al- though deterioration of 6.5 points is not considered clinically important. In the exploratory analysis, we found significant deterioration in some functional scales and increased symptoms in breast cancer patients one-year post-chemotherapy compared to the pre-chemotherapy state. Cognitive function- ing, body image, and physical functioning signifi- cantly deteriorated. Among symptoms, increased arm symptoms, pain, fatigue, and systemic therapy side effects were self-reported (Figure 2). Patients in our study did not perceive dete- rioration of GHS by a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment. That means that patients perceived good overall well-being, as they had not been ill. A similar finding for GHS in patients 1–15 years post-diagnosis was found by others. 7-9,17 On the other hand, our patients reported a slight deterio- ration of C30-SumCs one-year post-chemotherapy, probably due to the toxicities of multimodality treatment. Ferreira et al. noted similar persistent deterioration of C30-SumSc after two years in pre- menopausal patients treated with chemotherapy and postmenopausal patients treated with endo- crine therapy. 18 Deterioration of C30-SumSc is not only due to treatment but could be also due to the progression of cancer. C30 Sum-Sc has recently been shown as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in several cancers. 19 In our explorative analysis, we found a detri- mental effect of cancer treatments (either chemo- therapy, endocrine therapy, surgery, or radiother- apy) on specific functional and symptom scales, evaluated with QLQ C30 and QLQ BR23. Patients reported clinically meaningful deterioration in cognitive functioning and body image from base- line to one-year post-chemotherapy. Deficits in cognitive, role, social, and emotional functioning, particularly in young patients, were also reported by others 1–10 years after surgery . 8,20,21 Compared to the general population, researchers found signifi- cantly lower mean scores for cognitive and social functioning, role functioning and emotional func- tioning, physical functioning and body image, and future perspective between 5–15 years post-thera- py. 7,9,17,22 That means that the consequences of treat- ment could be life-long. Interestingly, some serum markers of systemic inflammation were found to be statistically significantly higher in cancer survi- vors treated with chemotherapy even 20 years af- ter chemotherapy and were associated with lower cognitive performance. 23 Breast reconstruction, however, improved physical functioning and body image compared to breast-conserving surgery; the same applies to social functioning and future per- spective. 24,25 In addition to detrimental effects on functional scales, our exploratory analysis showed signifi- cantly increased symptom scores after one year compared to baseline: fatigue, arm symptoms, pain, and, to a lesser degree, the systemic therapy side effects. In addition to these symptoms, other researchers reported insomnia or sleep distur- bances, breast symptoms and financial difficulties, dyspnoea, hot flashes, sexual problems, and poly- neuropathy. 7-9,17,20 Some differences in symptoms, however, were described only as trivial, with small clinical relevance. 17 We suppose that pain and arm symptoms are related to higher nodal burden and consequently performed axillary dissection and irradiation. However, perceived fatigue, pain, and arm symp- toms could also reflect less personal engagement in avoiding or managing these symptoms. Sixty- nine percent of our patients had primary surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, and 31% had the opposite sequence of treatment. In view of this information, we would expect that arm symptoms (from the BR-23 questionnaire) will be greater Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 217 at the beginning (at inclusion in the study) than 1-year post-chemotherapy. But it turned out the op- posite. We can explain this finding by the fact that arm symptoms are scores from three items, name- ly pain (not only pain in the arm, but also pain in the shoulder), swelling of the arm, and difficulties in the mobility of the arm. The swelling of the arm usually occurs with a delay. Swelling is more com- mon when axillary dissection is performed (in our case 35.3% of patients) than when removing only sentinel lymph nodes. Radiotherapy, which was delivered to 81.9% of our patients, could contribute to swelling and pain as well. Symptom pain of the C30 questionnaire is about pain anywhere and is made up of two questions, whether the pain is present and the question if it affects every day functioning. Generally, chemo- therapy, especially taxanes, received by 79.1% of our patients, also contributes to the pain. Sensory polyneuropathy, not only hurts but often im- pedes normal functioning (walking, fine motoric). Additional pain could be contributed to adjuvant endocrine therapy (tamoxifen mainly affects large joints, and aromatase inhibitors affect small joints). Yoon et al. found variation in symptom reporting influenced by race/ethnicity and other sociodemo- graphic characteristics, and several comorbid con- ditions. 26 Returning to work is a significant milestone for breast cancer survivors. 7 Von Ah et al. found that everyday cognition correlates with work engage- ment. What do these findings mean for cancer sur- vivors in the setting of clinical practice? Cognitive dysfunction and fatigue are the most important is- sues for patients, especially if they are employed. Cognitive dysfunction after chemotherapy (“chemo brain”) is described as the impairment of memory, attention, executive functions, and pro- cessing speed. 27,28 Recently it has also been report- ed for hormonal therapy (tamoxifen and nonster- oid aromatase inhibitors), targeted therapy, immu- notherapy, and due to cancer itself, combined in terminus “cancer-related cognitive dysfunction”. 28 Subjective cognitive problems were reported by half of breast cancer patients after chemotherapy, but only 15–25% had an objective cognitive de- cline. 28 Despite the mild-to-moderate severity of cognitive dysfunction, it represents an important issue for patients. 27 It is especially true for pa- tients who are employed. 7,8,26 Impaired cognitive functioning in our patients one-year post-chemo- therapy could be related to treatment with chemo- therapy and surgery (general anesthesia) as well as adjuvant endocrine treatment (85% of patients). Among symptoms, fatigue is reported most regularly in all studies. Fatigue is a subjective feel- ing of lack of energy, of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer and/or cancer treatment, and interferes with usual functioning. 29 It is a multidimensional symptom that accompanies patients while receiving chem- otherapy and can last many years after chemo- therapy. 27 As with cognitive dysfunction, it could be associated with the type of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted thera- py, or radiotherapy). The rehabilitation of cancer survivors should be diverse, according to the needs of the individual patient. For example, physical functioning and fa- tigue could be improved with regular exercise. 30 Arm symptoms could be managed with physical rehabilitation and more specifically lymphoedema treatment, elastic compressive gloves, and pain- killers. Pain (in the breast, arm, joints, peripheral polyneuropathy) should be appropriately man- aged by a pain specialist. Cognitive rehabilitation could include cognitive rehabilitation programs, physical activity, or relaxation programs. 27 Hot flashes and sexual issues could be managed by a gynecologist. With fewer symptoms and bet- ter symptom scales patients would probably have better cognitive and role functioning and a better body image. In order to improve the QoL of cancer survivors, a pilot study on the comprehensive re- habilitation of breast cancer patients is underway at our institute. Identifying problems early proba- bly allows an earlier targeted approach, thus lead- ing to better patient functioning, an earlier return to work, and less absenteeism in the workplace. Evaluation of the results of comprehensive reha- bilitation on improving functional and symptom scales is eagerly awaited. Strengths of the study Firstly, this is a prospective cohort study of health- related quality of life, using validated question- naires and tools, such as GHS and C30-SumSc, recommended by the EORTC. Many studies per- form only cross-sectional data analysis. Secondly, we performed a comparison with our normative population to obtain information about what pa- tients’ scores would be without cancer. Limitations of the study The first limitation is the small sample size and that we did not have a baseline value of items in Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 218 the questionnaires before any cancer treatment. Secondly, we included only patients that were proficient in using smartphones, and thus prob- ably inadvertently chose a subset of the popula- tion that is highly motivated, healthier, and with middle social status. However, those patients were supported by a mobile app for coping with symp- toms, which would probably be even heavier with- out the app. Thirdly, we included only Android- based smartphone users, which represented 80% of smartphones in Slovenia at that time. However, the app for IOS had not yet been made available. An additional weakness of our study is that the as- pects of depression and anxiety, which affect cog- nitive functioning and fatigue, were not involved. Comorbidities were also not assessed – these are also significant predictors of symptoms, especially amongst those receiving chemotherapy. Conclusions Patients with early breast cancer had similar GHS before chemotherapy as the normative Slovenian population, and it did not deteriorate with treat- ment. One year after chemotherapy, C30-SumSc deteriorated compared to that before chemothera- py. Early interventions should be directed toward the prevention of the decline of cognitive function- ing and body image, and to alleviate fatigue, pain, and arm symptoms. Acknowledgments We thank Nina Ružić Gorenjec, who performed a statistical analysis but could not contribute as a co- author of the manuscript. This research was partly supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (Prognostic and pre- dictive factors for response in the treatment of breast cancer and other cancers, P3-0321). References 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mor- tality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 2. Institute of Oncology Ljubljana. Cancer registry. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jan 22]. Available at: http://www.slora.si/en/stevilo-zivih-bolnikov 3. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365-76. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 4. Michels FAS, Latorre MDRDDO, Maciel MDS. Validity, reliability and under- standing of the EORTC-C30 and EORTC-BR23, quality of life questionnaires specific for breast cancer. Rev Bras Epidemiol 2013; 16: 352-363. doi: 10.1590/S1415-790X2013000200011 5. Giesinger JM, Kieffer JM, Fayers PM, Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Scott NW. EORTC Quality of Life Group Replication and validation of higher order mod- els demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.007 6. Schmidt ME, Scherer S, Wiskemann J, Steindorf K. Return to work after breast cancer: the role of treatment-related side effects and potential impact on quality of life. Eur J Cancer Care 2019; 28: e13051. doi: 10.1111/ ecc.13051 7. von Ah D, Crouch A. Relationship of perceived everyday cognitive function and work engagement in breast cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer 2021; 29: 303-4309. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05950-8 8. Arndt V, Merx H, Stürmer T, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H, Brenner H. Age-specific detriments to quality of life among breast cancer patients one year after diagnosis. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 673-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.12.007 9. Ahn SH, Park BW, Noh DY, Nam SJ, Lee ES, Lee MK, et al. Health-related quality of life in disease-free survivors of breast cancer with the general pop- ulation. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 173-82. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl333. Erratum in: Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1753-4. 10. Grašič Kuhar C, Gortnar Cepeda T, Kovač T, Kukar M, Ružić Gorenjec N. Mobile app for symptom management and associated quality of life during systemic treatment in early stage breast cancer: nonrandomized controlled prospective cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8: e17408. doi: 10.2196/17408 11. Velenik V, Secerov-Ermenc A, But-Hadzic J, Zadnik V. Health-related qual- ity of life assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 Questionnaire in the gen- eral Slovenian population. Radiol Oncol 2017; 51: 342-50. doi: 10.1515/ raon-2017-0021 12. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Thompson A, Zackrisson S, et al; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(Suppl 6): vi7-23. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt284 13. Fayers P, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. 3rd edition. Brussels: EORTC Brussels; 2001. [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jun 22]. Available at: https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/ sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf 14. Scoring of the QLQ-C30 Summary Score. [Internet]. [cited 2022 Nov 26]. Available at: https://qol.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/scoring_ of_the_qlq-c30_summary_score.pdf 15. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 139- 44. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139 16. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2020. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ 17. Doege D, Thong MS, Koch-Gallenkamp L, Bertram H, Eberle A, Holleczek B, et al. Health-related quality of life in long-term disease-free breast cancer survivors versus female population controls in Germany. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 175: 499-510. doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05188-x 18. Ferreira AR, Di Meglio A, Pistilli B, Gbenou AS, El-Mouhebb M, Dauchy S, et al. Differential impact of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy on quality of life of breast cancer survivors: a prospective patient-reported outcomes analysis. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1784-95. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz298 19. Husson O, de Rooij BH, Kieffer J, Oerlemans S, Mols F, Aaronson NK, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Summary Score as prognostic factor for survival of patients with cancer in the “real-world”: Results from the Population-Based PROFILES Registry. Oncologist 2020; 25: e722-e32. doi: 10.1634/theoncolo- gist.2019-0348 20. Arndt V, Merx H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H, Brenner H. Persistence of restric- tions in quality of life from the first to the third year after diagnosis in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4945-53. doi: 10.1200/ JCO.2005.03.475. 21. Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It’s not over when it’s over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors ‒ a systematic review. Int J Psychiatry Med 2010; 40: 163-181. doi:10.2190/PM.40.2.c Radiol Oncol 2023; 57(2): 211-219. Grasic Kuhar C et al. / Comparison of the quality of life between breast cancer patients and the Slovenian population 219 22. de Ligt KM, Heins M, Verloop J, Ezendam NPM, Smorenburg CH, Korevaar JC, et al. The impact of health symptoms on health-related quality of life in early-stage breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 178: 703- 11. doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05433-3 23. van der Willik KD, Koppelmans V, Hauptmann M, Compter A, Ikram MA, Schagen SB. Inflammation markers and cognitive performance in breast cancer survivors 20 years after completion of chemotherapy: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 2018; 20: 135. doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-1062-3 24. Zehra S, Doyle F, Barry M, Walsh S, Kell MR. Health-related quality of life following breast reconstruction compared to total mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery among breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer 2020; 27: 534-66. doi: 10.1007/ s12282-020-01076-1 25. Yfantis A, Sarafis P , Moisoglou I, Tolia M, Intas G, Tiniakou I, et al. How breast cancer treatments affect the quality of life of women with non-metastatic breast cancer one year after surgical treatment: a cross-sectional study in Greece. BMC Surg 2020; 20: 210. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00871-z 26. Yoon J, Malin JL, Tao ML, Tisnado DM, Adams JL, Timmer MJ, et al. Symptoms after breast cancer treatment: are they influenced by patient characteristics? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 108: 153-165. doi: 10.1007/ s10549-007-9599-3 27. Joly F , Lange M, Dos Santos M, Vaz-Luis I, Di Meglio A. Long-term fatigue and cognitive disorders in breast cancer survivors. Cancers 2019; 11: 1896. doi: 10.3390/cancers11121896 28. Lange M, Joly F, Vardy J, Ahles T, Dubois M, Tron L, et al. Cancer-related cognitive impairment: an update on state of the art, detection, and man- agement strategies in cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1925-40. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz410 29. National Comprehensive Cancer Networ. NCCN guidelines for supportive care. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 6]. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/ professionals/physician_gls/pdf/fatigue.pdf 30. Puetz TW, Herring MP. Differential effects of exercise on cancer-related fa- tigue during and following treatment: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 2012; 43: e1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.027