Search

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.

Introduction The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK. Methods A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined. Results 81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50–80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0–3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0–3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures. Conclusions The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored., Highlights • Implant breast reconstruction (IBBR) and the range of techniques is poorly evidence based. • We aimed to explore the current practice of IBBR in the UK to inform the design of a future definitive study. • Significant variation was demonstrated in the availability of techniques and patient selection for IBBR. • There is a need for well-designed studies to establish best practice and improve outcomes for patients considering IBBR.

INTRODUCTION: The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study.METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines.RESULTS: 81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable.CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

The availability, acceptability and practice of oncoplastic surgery has increased over the last 5 years. This study aims to describe how the breast and plastic surgical workforce has adapted to provide oncoplastic breast surgery.A questionnaire was distributed to members of the Association of Breast Surgery and BAPRAS, and results compared to a survey completed in 2010.In 2010, 228 respondents completed the survey compared to 237 in 2015, of whom 204 were consultants (105 General or Breast Surgeons and 99 Plastic Surgeons). The range of procedures performed by Plastic Surgeons has remained static, the General and Breast Surgeons are performing proportionally more therapeutic mammaplasty (p 0.001), breast reduction/mastopexy, and latissimus dorsi reconstructions. In 2015, surgeons are less concerned about the risks of lipomodelling than in 2010, with an increase the proportion of breast (55% vs. 26%) and plastic (91% vs. 58%) surgeons performing the technique.Specific concerns about oncoplastic surgery have decreased over the last five years, with a greater proportion of surgeons performing oncoplastic surgery including lipomodelling. The majority of breast surgeons in 2015 remain interested in further training in oncoplastic techniques (75%) but over the last 5 years, plastic surgeons interest in further training in oncoplastic surgery has dropped from 62% to 27%. About half of all breast and plastic surgeons felt that oncoplastic surgery should be available for all women and oncological and wound healing concerns had significantly reduced between 2010 and 2015 (p 0.05).

The goals of nipple-areola reconstruction are symmetry in position, shape, size, colour, tone, texture, sensation and responsiveness. These goals are best attempted when the breast-mound reconstruction has been completed. We describe a technique in which the skin of the neo-areola is raised as a split-thickness skin graft, and then re-grafted to the same site with a free nipple graft. This technique is always available, requires no special equipment, causes no donor-site morbidity and produces excellent results. The disadvantage is that it may be more difficult following radiotherapy or if the mastectomy scar traverses the desired site of nipple-areola reconstruction. As with any skin graft, the neo-areola may lose pigmentation, imperfectly 'take' or contract with time. This technique has not been previously described in the literature.

It is generally felt that a halo naevus is benign, and patients can be reassured. The lesion is frequently left alone. We present a case where the clinician felt reassured, but at the patient's insistence the lesion was excised. The histology result was not anticipated.