Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or pre-pectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?) A protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus pre-pectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

Background: implant-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 analysis: best-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 dissemination: the 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 number: ISRCTN10081873.</p

Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial

Abstract 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

Protocol for a national cohort study to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: The Brighter Study

Introduction Breast 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 analysis Women 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 dissemination The 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

Impact of procedure type on revisional surgery and secondary reconstruction after immediate breast reconstruction in a population-based cohort

Women considering immediate breast reconstruction require high-quality information about the likely need for secondary reconstruction and the long-term risk of revisional surgery to make fully informed decisions about different reconstructive options. Such data are currently lacking. This study aimed to explore the impact of reconstruction type on the number of revisions and secondary reconstructions performed 3, 5, and 8 years after immediate breast reconstruction in a large population-based cohort. Women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ in England between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2015 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Numbers of revisions and secondary reconstructions in women undergoing primary definitive immediate breast reconstruction were compared by procedure type at 3, 5, and 8 years after index surgery. Some 16 897 women underwent immediate breast reconstruction with at least 3 years' follow-up. Of these, 14 069 had a definitive reconstruction with an implant only (5193), latissimus dorsi flap with (3110) or without (2373) an implant, or abdominal free flap (3393). Women undergoing implant-only reconstruction were more likely to require revision, with 69.5 per cent (747 of 1075) undergoing at least one revision by 8 years compared with 49.3 per cent (1568 of 3180) in other reconstruction groups. They were also more likely to undergo secondary reconstruction, with the proportion of women having further reconstructive procedures increasing over time: 12.8 per cent (663 of 5193) at 3 years, 14.3 per cent (535 of 3752) at 5 years, and 17.6 per cent (189 of 1075) at 8 years. Long-term rates of revisions and secondary reconstructions were considerably higher after primary implant-based reconstruction than autologous procedures. These results should be shared with patients to support informed decision-making. [Abstract copyright: © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-08-11, rev-recd 2020-12-04, accepted 2020-12-10, registration 2020-12-11, pub-electronic 2021-03-25, online 2021-03-25, pub-print 2021-05-25Publication status: PublishedAbstract: 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

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: Outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study

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

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: registration 2021-03-26, online 2021-04-12, pub-electronic 2021-04-12, pub-print 2021-08-31Publication status: PublishedA Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-