Search

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have an integral role on how to improve patients' overall experience. The optimal PROs delivery in patients with breast disease is an important issue since PROs are steadily integrated in routine care. Methods: An institutional phase 3 randomised controlled, open-label trial. Eligible candidates were adult women with perceived or confirmed breast disease. Computer generated randomization was used to allocate interventions: collection of PROs in electronic or paper form. Our objective was the effectiveness of electronic versus paper form of PROs. The main outcome measures were: response rate, reported experience, administrative resources, and carbon dioxide emissions. Results: Two hundred thirty-eight patients were randomised. After loss-to-follow-up and consent withdrawals, 218 participants (median age, IQR=55, 21; n=110/n=108) were included in the per-intention-to-treat analysis. Response rate was 61.8% for electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) and 63.9% for paper patient reported outcomes (pPROs) (difference=-2.1%, 95% CI: -15.8-11.7%). Only known breast cancer at recruitment was predictive for response in multivariable analysis. ePROs were associated with a 57% reduction in administrative time required, a 95% reduction in incremental costs, and 84% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, all differences being significant. No difference was detected in perception of PRO significance or ease of completion, but participants experienced that they needed less time to complete ePROs [median, (IQR) 10 (9) respectively 15(10)]. Finally, respondents would prefer ePROs over pPROs (difference 48.1%, 95% CI: 32.8-63.4%). Conclusion: ePROs do not increase the response rate in patients with perceived or confirmed breast disease. However, they can enhance patient experience, reduce incremental costs, facilitate administrative logistics, and are more sustainable. On the basis of these findings, both modalities should continue to, De två första författarna delar förstaförfattarskapet.De två sista författarna delar sistaförfattarskapet.

Background: Superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles perform comparably to radioisotope +/- blue dye for sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer, even when injected up to 8 weeks before surgery. Using superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles for sentinel lymph node detection after primary systemic therapy, and the maximum time frame of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle administration have not been investigated. Methods: This cohort study included cN0/1-to-ycN0 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node detection or targeted axillary dissection. All patients received superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles either before primary systemic therapy or before surgery, and radioisotope on the day of surgery. Results: For 113 patients analysed, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles were injected a median of 3 (range 0-248) days before surgery, with a 97.4% detection rate compared with 91.2% for radioisotope (P = 0.057). Concordance for radioisotope was 97.1% and this was not affected by timing of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle injection (Kendall's tau 0.027; P = 0.746). The median sentinel lymph node yield was 3 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 2-3) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 2 (i.q.r. 2-3) for radioisotope (P < 0.001). In targeted axillary dissection, detection was 100% for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 81.8% for radioisotope (P = 0.124). The index node was magnetic in 93.9% and radioactive in 66.7% (P = 0.007), an outcome that was not affected by any factors. For patients with metastases, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle detection was 100% and radioisotope-based detection was 84.2% (P = 0.083), with superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles detecting more metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (median of 1 (i.q.r. 1-2) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles compared with a median of 1 (i.q.r. 0-1) for radioisotope; P = 0.005). Conclusion: Injection before primary systemic therapy is feasible and does not affect concordance with radioisotope. Superpara

Background: Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics. Methods: We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer. Results: For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons’ and radiologists’ attitudes towards these techniques. Conclusions: Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies. Simple summary Most breast cancers are small and can be treated using breast-conserving surgery. Since these tumors are non-palpable, they require a localization step that helps the surgeon to decide which tissue needs to be removed. The oldest localization technique is a guidewire placed into the tumor before surgery, usually using ultrasound or mammography. Afterwards, the surgeon removes the tissue around the wire tip. However, this technique has several disadvantages: It can cause the patient discomfort, requires a radiologist or another professional specialized in breast diagnostics to perform the procedure shortly before surgery, a

Importance: Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed. Objective: To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022. Study Selection: Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs

Background: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS lowers the relative local recurrence risk by half. To identify a low-risk group with the minimal benefit of RT could avoid side effects and spare costs. In this study, the outcome was compared for different RT-strategies using data from the randomized SweDCIS trial. Material and methods: Five strategies were compared in a Swedish setting: RT-to-none or all, RT to high-risk women defined by DCISionRT, modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9804 criteria, and Swedish Guidelines. Ten-year recurrence risks and cost including adjuvant RT and local recurrence treatment cost were calculated. Results: The mean age at recurrence was 64.4 years (36–90) and the mean cost for treating a recurrence was $21,104. In the SweDCIS cohort (n = 504), 59 women developed DCIS, and 31 invasive recurrence. Ten-year absolute local recurrence risk (invasive and DCIS) according to different strategies varied between 18.6% (12.5–23.6%) and 7.8% (5.0–12.6%) for RT-to-none or to-all, with an additional cost of $2614 US dollars per women and $24,201 per prevented recurrence for RT-to-all. The risk differences between other strategies were not statistically significant, but the larger proportion receiving RT, the fewer recurrences. DCISionRT spared 48% from RT with 8.1% less recurrences compared to RT-to-none, and a cost of $10,534 per prevented recurrence with additional cost depending on the price of the test. RTOG 9804 spared 39% from RT, with 9.7% less recurrences, $9525 per prevented recurrence and Swedish Guidelines spared 13% from RT, with 10.0% less recurrences, and $21,521 per prevented recurrence. Conclusion: It seems reasonable to omit RT in pre-specified low-risk groups with minimal effect on recurrence risk. Costs per prevented recurrence varied more than two-fold but which strategy that could be considered most cost-effective needs to be further evaluated, including the DCISionRT-test price.

BACKGROUND: Volume replacement using chest wall perforator flaps (CWPFs) is a promising technique to reduce mastectomy rates without sacrificing function or aesthetics. Owing to limited availability of the technique, only a minority of patients currently have access to CWPF procedures. METHODS: An international web-based survey was disseminated through social media, dedicated webpages, and national and international societies for breast surgery. The survey explored surgeons' attitudes towards CWPFs and their perceived training needs. RESULTS: Of 619 respondents, 88.4 per cent agreed that CWPF surgery was desirable, with one-third offering it and performing a median of 10 (i.q.r. 5-15) procedures annually. They were more likely to be senior (OR 1.35, 95 per cent c.i. 1.18 to 1.55; P < 0.001), with formal oncoplastic training (OR 4.80, 3.09 to 7.48; P < 0.001), and working in larger units (OR 1.18, 1.03 to 1.35; P = 0.018) with a free-flap (OR 1.62, 1.06 to 2.48; P = 0.025) or CWPF (OR 3.02, 1.87 to 4.89; P < 0.001) service available. In cluster and latent class analysis, none showed high cohesion with performance of CWPF surgery. CONCLUSION: There is a discrepancy between perceived importance and availability of CWPF surgery, indicating that optimal training is needed.

Background: Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIO) have been used as a tracer for sentinel lymph node (SLN) localization in breast cancer, demonstrating comparable performance to the combination of radioisotope (RI) and blue dye (BD). Methods: A systematic literature search and meta-analysis with subgroup and meta-regression analysis were undertaken to update the available evidence, assess technique evolution, and define knowledge gaps. Recommendations were made using the GRADE approach. Results: In 20 comparative studies, the detection rate was 97.5 per cent for SPIO and 96.5 per cent for RI +/- BD (risk ratio 1.006, 95 per cent c.i. 0.992 to 1.019; P = 0.376, high-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant therapy, injection site, injection volume or nodal metastasis burden did not affect the detection rate, but injection over 24 h before surgery increased the detection rate on meta-regression. Concordance was 99.0 per cent and reverse concordance 97.1 per cent (rate difference 0.003, 95 per cent c.i. -0.009 to 0.015; P = 0.656, high-certainty evidence). Use of SPIO led to retrieval of slightly more SLNs (pooled mean 1.96 versus 1.89) with a higher nodal detection rate (94.1 versus 83.5 per cent; RR 1.098, 1.058 to 1.140; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). In meta-regression, injection over 24 h before surgery increased the SPIO nodal yield over that of RI +/- BD. The skin-staining rate was 30.8 per cent (very low-certainty evidence), and possibly prevented with use of smaller doses and peritumoral injection. Conclusion: The performance of SPIO is comparable to that of RI +/- BD. Preoperative injection increases the detection rate and nodal yield, without affecting concordance. Whether skin staining and MRI artefacts are reduced by lower dose and peritumoral injection needs to be investigated.