Identifying research priorities in breast cancer surgery: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06756-4

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075