Search

Introduction: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer require high-quality information about the short and long-term outcomes of different procedure types to allow them to make informed decisions about their surgical options. Long-term multicentre patient-reported outcomes (PROs) comparing the patients’ perspectives of different techniques is currently lacking. The UK Brighter study aimed to compare the long-term patient-reported outcomes of different types of IBR to support informed decision-making. Methods: Women who underwent unilateral mastectomy and/or breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in England between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified from National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and current contact information for the surviving cohort were provided by the NHS Personal Demographic Service. Women were sent a letter inviting them to complete three validated patient report questionnaires, the BREAST Q, EQ-5D5L and ICECAP-A, electronically or by post at a minimum of 12 years following their index surgery. Questionnaires were scored according to developers’ instructions and results compared by type of IBR procedure performed. Results: 11,977 women were invited to participate of whom 4,207 (35.1%) completed the questionnaires. Of these, 1,236 (29.4%) received IBR with 343 (27.8%) expander/implant (EI) reconstructions, 629 (50.9%) latissimus dorsi (LD) procedures with or without an implant, and 264 (21.4%) abdominal flap (AF) reconstructions. The mean age at index surgery was 52.1 years, standard deviation (SD) 9.5. The majority of respondents were white (n=1,179, 97.4%) and predominantly from areas of the lowest socioeconomic deprivation. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.6 (SD 3.9). 141 (11.6%) women actively smoked at the time of surgery and 227 (19.0%) had a complication requiring further surgery. Women undergoing AFs reported significantly higher ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ (mean 67.7, SD 20.4) than those undergoing LD (mean 58.9, SD 21.1), or EI reconstructions (mean 54.7, SD 19.2), (p< 0.001). ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ was also greater in women undergoing index surgery over 50 years of age (p=0.02) and in those who did not smoke (p=0.03) whereas experiencing post-operative complications was strongly associated with poorer ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ in the multivariable analysis (p=0.001). Women receiving AF also reported better ‘Physical Well-being’ (mean 87.8, SD 16.04) than women undergoing LD flap (mean 79.5, SD 20.5) or EI procedures (mean 82.1, SD 18.2), (p< 0.001). Overall, women undergoing AFs were more likely to rate the outcome of their surgery as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ (189/256, 73.8%) compared with those receiving other reconstruction types (LD - 386/610, 63.3%; EI - 175/331, 52.9%, p< 0.001). Conclusion: Women undergoing abdominal flap reconstruction report significantly better outcomes 12 years following IBR than women receiving other reconstruction types. These findings should be shared with women considering breast reconstruction to help them make informed decisions about their surgical options. Citation Format: Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Joe O’Donoghue, Syed Mohiuddin, William Hollingworth, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter. PD15-09 Impact of procedure type on the long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD15-09.

Introduction: Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is an important component of breast cancer treatment and has been shown to improve overall survival for women with large cancers or node positive disease. The long-term effects of radiotherapy on the outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) and how these are perceived from the patients’ perspective, however, are largely unknown. The UK Brighter study aimed to evaluate the long-term impact of PMRT on the patient-reported outcomes of IBR to support informed decision-making. Methods: Women who underwent unilateral mastectomy and/or breast reconstruction for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in England between 1/4/2008 and 31/3/2009 were identified from National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and current contact information for the surviving cohort provided by the NHS Personal Demographic Service. Women were sent a letter inviting them to complete three validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires, the BREAST Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, electronically or by post at a minimum of 12 years following their index surgery. Questionnaires were scored according to developers’ instructions and scores for women who had received PMRT following IBR compared with those who underwent IBR without radiotherapy, in the cohort as a whole and by reconstruction type. Results: 11,977 women were invited to participate of whom 4,207 (35.1%) completed the questionnaires. Some 1,236 (29.4%) underwent IBR with 343 (27.8%) expander/implant (EI) reconstructions, 629 (50.9%) latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps with or without (+/-) an implant, and 264 (21.4%) abdominal flap (AF) reconstructions. Of these, 388 (31.4%) (EI n=79 (20.4%); LD+/-implant n=222 (57.2%); AF n=87 (22.4%) received PMRT. In the cohort overall, women who received PMRT following IBR reported significantly lower ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ scores at 12 years compared with those who did not receive radiotherapy (PMRT mean 56.4. standard deviation (SD) 21.5 vs. no PMRT mean 61.3, SD 20.5), p< 0.001). However, this difference varied across procedure types. Specifically, the ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ scores of women receiving PMRT following AF reconstruction were 10.5 points lower than those not receiving PMRT (PMRT mean 60.9, SD 20.2; no PMRT mean 71.4, SD 19.6, p< 0.001). This difference was lower in in women undergoing LD reconstruction (mean with PMRT 54.3, SD 21.1; mean without PMRT 61.6, SD 20.7; p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in women undergoing EI reconstruction (PMRT mean 57.5, SD 23.6, no PMRT mean 53.9, SD 17.7). ‘Physical Well-being’ (chest) scores were also significantly lower in women receiving PMRT following IBR in the cohort overall (PMRT mean 78.7, SD 20.1, no PMRT 83.6, SD 18.6, p< 0.001) but women undergoing AF reconstruction showed the greatest difference in scores (PMRT mean 83.2, SD 17.0 vs No PMRT mean 90.1, SD 15.0, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in ‘Physical Well-being’ scores for women who underwent EI reconstruction with or without PMRT. ‘Psychosocial Well-being’ scores were lower in women receiving PMRT after IBR (PMRT mean 70.8, SD 22.0, No PMRT 75.4, SD 21.0), but again, differential effects were seen by procedure type with no significant differences seen in the EI group but significant differences in scores seen in women receiving PMRT after flap-based procedures. Conclusions: Women undergoing PMRT report significantly lower long-term patient-reported outcomes of flap-based reconstruction, in particular ‘Satisfaction with Breasts’ and ‘Physical Well-being’ scores. This difference was not apparent in women undergoing EI procedures. This information should be shared with patients to help them make fully informed decisions about the type and timing of their reconstructive surgery. Citation Format: Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Joe O’Donoghue, Syed Mohiuddin, William Hollingworth, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter. Impact of radiotherapy on the long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-15-03.

Purpose A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods ‘Uncertainties’ were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop. Results 260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making. Conclusion The top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

Introduction\ud \ud Evidence based guidelines for the optimal management of breast cancer locoregional recurrence (LRR) are limited, with potential for variation in clinical practice. This national practice questionnaire (NPQ) was designed to establish the current practice of UK breast multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) regarding LRR management.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud UK breast units were invited to take part in the MARECA study MDT NPQ. Scenario-based questions were used to elicit preference in pre-operative staging investigations, surgical management, and adjuvant therapy.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud 822 MDT members across 42 breast units (out of 144; 29%) participated in the NPQ (February–August 2021). Most units (95%) routinely performed staging CT scan, but bone scan was selectively performed (31%).\ud \ud \ud \ud For patients previously treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy, few units (7%) always/usually offered repeat BCS. However, in the absence of radiotherapy, most units (90%) always/usually offered repeat BCS. For patients presenting with isolated local recurrence following previous BCS and SLNB (sentinel lymph node biopsy), most units (95%) advocated repeat SLNB. Where SLNs could not be identified, 86% proceeded to a four-node axillary sampling procedure.\ud \ud \ud \ud For ER positive, HER2 negative, node negative local recurrence, 10% of units always/usually offered chemotherapy. For ER positive, HER2 negative, node positive local recurrence, this recommendation increased to 64%. For triple negative breast cancer local recurrence, 90% of units always/usually offered chemotherapy.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud This survey has highlighted where consistencies and variations exist in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer LRR. However, further research is required to determine how these management patterns influence patient outcomes, which will further refine optimal treatment pathways.

Introduction: Approximately 55,000 women in the United Kingdom are diagnosed with new breast cancer annually. Since emerging in December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting healthcare delivery worldwide. In response to the pandemic, multiple guidelines were issued to assist with rationalising breast cancer care. The primary aim of the B-MaP-C study is to audit and describe breast cancer management of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic against pre-COVID-19 management practice in the UK. The implications of changes to management will be determined and the impact of a COVID-19 diagnosis on the patient's breast cancer management will be determined. Methods and analysis: This is a multi-centre collaborative audit of consecutive breast cancer patients undergoing treatment decisions during the acute and recovery phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. All patients with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer, whose treatment was decided in a multidisciplinary meeting from the 16th March 2020, are eligible for inclusion. Ethics and dissemination: As this is an audit ethical approval is not required. Each participating centre is required to register the study locally and obtain local governance approvals prior to commencement of data collection. Local audit data will be available to individual participating units for governance purposes. The results of the data analysis will be submitted for publication, as well as disseminated via the ABS newsletter and a webinar. All data will be presented at national and international conferences, circumstances permitting. Registration details: Each participating centre received local governance audit registration.

Introduction: Women considering immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for breast cancer require high-quality information about the short and long-term clinical outcomes of different procedure types, including the need for further surgery, to allow them to make fully informed decisions about their breast reconstruction options. Long-term outcome data is currently lacking. The UK Brighter population-based cohort study aimed to compare the need for revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction by type of IBR at a minimum of 12 years following the index procedure to support informed decision-making. Methods: Women who underwent unilateral mastectomy and IBR for invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in England between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified using National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Lists of procedure codes indicating revisional surgery, defined as operations performed to the same site as the index reconstruction and/or the donor site (if appropriate), excluding a single planned implant exchange in the expander group, or secondary reconstruction, defined as the replacement of one reconstruction with another, with or without a period of being flat, were iteratively developed and refined. Numbers of revision procedures and secondary reconstructions were compared by type of index reconstruction. Multivariable regression was used to control for potential confounders. Results: 2,260 women underwent IBR during the study period including 742 (32.8%) expander/implant (EI), 1,146 (50.7%) latissimus dorsi (LD) flap reconstructions with (n=649) and without (n=497) an implant and 372 (16.5%) abdominal free-flap (AFF) procedures. Women receiving reconstructions involving implants were significantly more likely to require more revisions over time, with 201/742 (27.1%) patients undergoing EI reconstruction and 154/649 (23.7%) those receiving an implant-assisted LD reconstruction requiring two or more post-reconstruction revision procedures compared with 77/497 (15.5%) patients undergoing autologous LD and 59/372 (15.9%) patients receiving AFF procedures (p< 0.001). Undergoing primary reconstructive surgery before the age of 50, and region of residence at the time of the mastectomy were factors influencing revisional surgery in the multivariable regression analysis. By 12 years, 128/742 (17.3%) of women who initially underwent an expander/implant reconstruction had received a secondary reconstruction compared with 34/1146 (3.0%) patients who had initially received an LD +/- implant procedure and 11/372 (3.0%) patients initially undergoing an AFF reconstruction (p< 0.001). Conclusions: The need for revisional surgery in women electing to undergo IBR involving implants is significantly greater than that for women electing to receive autologous reconstructions and almost 1 in 5 women undergoing primary EI reconstruction required a secondary reconstruction by 12 years. These findings should be shared with women considering IBR to support informed decision making and with healthcare providers and commissioners to support the provision of high-quality, evidence-based reconstructive care. Citation Format: Leigh Johnson, Paul White, Ranjeet Jeevan, John Browne, Carmel Gulliver-Clarke, Joe O’Donoghue, Syed Mohiuddin, William Hollingworth, Patricia Fairbrother, Mairead MacKenzie, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter. PD15-10 Impact of procedure type on long-term revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction following immediate breast reconstruction: The UK Brighter national population-based cohort study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD15-10.

Background: POSNOC is a UK-ANZ multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial comparing systemic therapy alone with systemic therapy plus Axillary Treatment (Axillary radiotherapy or ALND) for women with ≤2 macrometastases at SNB. The primary outcome is axillary recurrence within 5 years. This paper describes screening, recruitment and compliance data. Methods: Sites were requested on a monthly basis to upload screening data and provide reasons for non-recruitment of eligible patients into the trial. Sites entered in the online database whether the patients were compliant with their randomisation allocation. Results: The study opened in July 2014 and completed target recruitment of 1900 women (24% of those screened) in July 2021, at 95 sites in the UK and 20 sites in Australia and New Zealand. The reason for non-enrolment was unknown in 1300 women. Of the remaining 4774 women with known reasons, who were screened but not randomised, the most common reasons for non-recruitment were due to either patients (n=2219, 46.5%) or their clinicians (n=782, 16.4%) favouring axillary treatment, or patients (n=490, 10.3%) or their clinicians (n=170, 3.6%) not wishing to have axillary treatment. Over the course of the study, there was an increase in the proportion of patients wanting axillary treatment and declining the trial (Mean % patients declined 2015 – 17.9%, 2021 – 39.1%). Mean number of participants recruited per site per month was 0.24 (SD 0.18) overall, 0.25 (SD 0.19) in the UK, and 0.19(SD 0.15) in ANZ. The mean was < 0.3 in 79 sites and >0.9 in only one site. Recruitment rate remained consistent throughout the study (mean 25.3 per month) except for during the first 6 months of recruitment (5.7) and during the COVID pandemic Apr-Sep 2020 (7.5). Of 89 (4.8%) participants non-compliant with allocation, n=45 (50.6%) received systemic therapy alone and n=44 (49.4%) received systemic therapy plus axillary treatment. There was no fluctuation in the direction of non-compliance during the study duration. There was increasing uptake of axillary radiotherapy to treat the axilla instead of ALND over the course of the study in patients receiving axillary treatment (Number who had ART of all who had axilla treatment2014-2017 - 248/454 (54.6 %); 2018-2021 – 315/449 (70.2%)). Conclusion: Recruitment and compliance with randomised allocation remained consistent over a seven-year period. POSNOC with in-built radiotherapy QA will provide definitive data on axillary management in patients undergoing mastectomy or BCS with ≤2 macrometastases on SNB. Citation Format: Amit Goyal, Cydney Bruce, Shabina Sadiq, Mickey Lewis, Alan Montgomery, G Bruce Mann, Heath Badger, Kathryn Monson, Valerie Jenkins, Lesley Fallowfield, Malcolm Reed, David Dodwell, Patricia Fairbrother, Tara Homer, Luke Vale, Roeum Butt, Elizabeth Miles, Shelley Dowey, Lucy Matthews, Hugh Jarrett, Juliet Jackson, Arfan Ali. Recruitment, clinical equipoise, patient acceptance and compliance in the UK-ANZ POSNOC trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-01-07.

BackgroundImplant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.Methods and analysisBest-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN10081873.

IntroductionBreast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques.Methods and analysisWomen undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR.Ethics and disseminationThe Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.

Introduction: Approximately 40% of the 55,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women’s quality of life and only 1 in 4 women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Level 2 oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) that combine removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (e.g. local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (e.g. therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy +/- IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible, well-designed and addresses questions important to patients and the NHS. Methods and analysis: Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy +/- IBR. It will have four parts: 1. A national practice questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK 2. A pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS vs. mastectomy; the proportion in whom OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12-months post-surgery. 3. A qualitative interview study to explore patients’ attitudes to different procedures; rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes. 4. Design of the future study All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months. Ethics and dissemination: The study has ethical approval from the Wales REC 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18238549 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY • This mixed methods study will determine whether it is possible to undertake a large prospective cohort study directly comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction in patients considered suitable for both procedures. • It will determine whether the BREAST-Q core breast cancer modules are an appropriate and meaningful patient-reported outcome measure for use in a future comparative study. • Qualitative interviews will explore patients’ attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision making and perception of outcomes providing the opportunity to improve informed consent in this group. • Suitability for OPBCS will be assessed by individual surgeons or teams. It is multifactorial with subjective elements and is likely to vary between individuals and centres. • Patients will only be followed up for 12 months and the effects of radiotherapy and any revisional surgery are likely to occur at a later time point.

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante.Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated 'standard' or 'COVID-altered', in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had 'COVID-altered' management. 'Bridging' endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2-9%) using 'NHS Predict'. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.The majority of 'COVID-altered' management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.

Highlights • Multicentre prospective study involving breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. • Will produce valuable data regarding the practice and outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty. • Will inform decision-making and lead to future definitive study. • Will strengthen the collaborative network to facilitate the delivery of future projects. • Will increase awareness of the techniques among trainees such that participation is educational., Introduction Wide local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy is the standard of care for early breast cancer. For large tumours, however, mastectomy is frequently recommended as conventional breast-conserving techniques often result in poor cosmetic outcomes. Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may extend the boundaries of breast-conserving surgery by combining breast reduction and mastopexy techniques with tumour excision, preserving a natural breast shape and avoiding the need for mastectomy. The prevalence of this operative option among surgeons in the UK and its success rate are unknown. The TeaM study is a multicentre prospective study that aims to investigate the practice and outcomes of TM. Methods and analysis Breast centres performing TM will be invited to participate through the research collaborative network and the professional associations. All patients undergoing TM between September 2016 and March 2017 will be included. Demographic, operative, oncological and complication data within 30-days of surgery will be collected. The primary outcome will be unplanned re-operation for complications. Secondary outcomes will include unplanned readmission, re-excision rates and time to adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 500 patients from 50 centres are anticipated. Exploratory analyses will identify predictors for complications and inform the design of a definitive study. Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed by the on-line Health Research Authority decision tool. This study will provide novel information regarding the practice and outcomes of TM in the UK. This will inform decision-making for patients and surgeons and inform future research. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative, the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network and the professional associations, the Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd The 2013 Breast Cancer Campaign gap analysis established breast cancer research priorities without a specific focus on surgical research or the role of surgeons on breast cancer research. This Review aims to identify opportunities and priorities for research in breast surgery to complement the 2013 gap analysis. To identify these goals, research-active breast surgeons met and identified areas for breast surgery research that mapped to the patient pathway. Areas included diagnosis, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant therapy, and attention to special groups (eg, those receiving risk-reducing surgery). Section leads were identified based on research interests, with invited input from experts in specific areas, supported by consultation with members of the Association of Breast Surgery and Independent Cancer Patients' Voice groups. The document was iteratively modified until participants were satisfied that key priorities for surgical research were clear. Key research gaps included issues surrounding overdiagnosis and treatment; optimising treatment options and their selection for neoadjuvant therapies and subsequent surgery; reducing rates of re-operations for breast-conserving surgery; generating evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction, and mechanisms for assessing novel interventions; establishing optimal axillary management, especially post-neoadjuvant treatment; and defining and standardising indications for risk-reducing surgery. We propose strategies for resolving these knowledge gaps. Surgeons are ideally placed for a central role in breast cancer research and should foster a culture of engagement and participation in research to benefit patients and health-care systems. Development of infrastructure and surgical research capacity, together with appropriate allocation of research funding, is needed to successfully address the key clinical and translational research gaps that are highlighted in this Review within the next two decades.

Overdiagnosis, and thus overtreatment, are inevitable consequences of most screening programmes; identification of ways of minimising the impact of overdiagnosis demands new prospective research, in particular the need to separate clinically relevant lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely left alone or monitored and only need treated if they change characteristics. Breast cancer screening has led to a large increase in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnoses. This is a widely heterogeneous disease and most DCIS detected through screening is of high cytonuclear grade and therefore likely to be important clinically. However, the historic practice of surgical treatment for all DCIS is unlikely to be optimal for lower risk patients. A clearer understanding of how to manage DCIS is required. This article describes the background and development of ‘The low risk’ DCIS trial (LORIS), a phase III trial of surgery versus active monitoring. LORIS will determine if it is appropriate to manage women with screen detected or asymptomatic, low grade and intermediate grade DCIS with low grade features, by active monitoring rather than by surgical treatment.

As colleges of nursing and midwiferymove into higher education they will be shaped by the ‘quality ethos’ of their parent university, where in the past, excellence in teaching has in practice been less valued than other (e.g. research) activities. Application of the principles of standards, quality and competitiveness now underlie the quality assessment and quality audit procedures of the University Funding Councils. Colleges of nursing and midwifery have a culture that considers and values excellence in teaching. It is therefore essential that teachers of nursing and midwifery can clearly define their criteria for teaching quality, and more significantly, how this might be achieved, recognized and rewarded. This article discusses the nature of quality in education and suggests different models for consideration. The nature of teaching, teaching quality and competence is reviewed and analysed; with characteristics of good teaching given, in the context of higher education. The assessment of teaching is debated; and a range of criteria are suggested by which teaching activities might be evaluated and judged. By being clear and explicit about these issues nurse and midwifery teachers, as they move into higher education, can work with their higher education colleagues to shape the ‘quality ethos’ to one that values excellence in teaching on a par with that of research.