Search

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.

Funder: Amgen, Funder: Roche, Funder: Universitätsspital Basel, Funder: Merck, Funder: AstraZeneca, Funder: Pfizer, AIM: Demand for nipple- and skin- sparing mastectomy (NSM/SSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (BR) has increased at the same time as indications for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) have broadened. The aim of the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium initiative was to address relevant questions arising with this clinically challenging scenario. METHODS: A large global panel of oncologic, oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists developed recommendations for clinical practice in an iterative process based on the principles of Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The panel agreed that surgical technique for NSM/SSM should not be formally modified when PMRT is planned with preference for autologous over implant-based BR due to lower risk of long-term complications and support for immediate and delayed-immediate reconstructive approaches. Nevertheless, it was strongly believed that PMRT is not an absolute contraindication for implant-based or other types of BR, but no specific recommendations regarding implant positioning, use of mesh or timing were made due to absence of high-quality evidence. The panel endorsed use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. It was acknowledged that the shape and size of reconstructed breasts can hinder radiotherapy planning and attention to details of PMRT techniques is important in determining aesthetic outcomes after immediate BR. CONCLUSIONS: The panel endorsed the need for prospective, ideally randomised phase III studies and for surgical and radiation oncology teams to work together for determination of optimal sequencing and techniques for PMRT for each patient in the context of BR.

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.

IntroductionACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence.Methods and analysisPOSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised.Ethics and disseminationProtocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands—Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN54765244;NCT0240168Cite Now

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.

© 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.