The iBRA-2 (immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant therapy audit) study: protocol for a prospective national multicentre cohort study to evaluate the impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the delivery of adjuvant therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer requiring a mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay the delivery of adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term oncological outcomes. High-quality evidence, however, is lacking. iBRA-2 is a national prospective multicentre cohort study that aims to investigate the effect of IBR on the delivery of adjuvant therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Breast and plastic surgery centres in the UK performing mastectomy with or without (±) IBR will be invited to participate in the study through the trainee research collaborative network. All women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer between 1 July and 31 December 2016 will be included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data will be collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR will be compared to determine the impact that IBR has on the time of delivery of adjuvant therapy. Prospective data on 3000 patients from ∼50 centres are anticipated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this study. This has been confirmed using the online Health Research Authority decision tool. This novel study will explore whether IBR impacts the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy. The study will provide valuable information to help patients and surgeons make more informed decisions about their surgical options. Dissemination of the study protocol will be via the Mammary Fold Academic and Research Collaborative (MFAC) and the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network (RSTN), the Association of Breast Surgery (ABS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS). Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant surgical conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals

Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review

Objective To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items. Study Design and Setting Literature was identified through searching bibliographic databases (until March 1, 2022) and gray literature sources (until May 27, 2022). Data were thematically analyzed into four categories: (1) definitions, (2) acceptability, (3) limitations and challenges, and (4) guidance, and synthesized into reporting guidance items. Results After screening, 90 documents were included: 79% (n = 71) had data on definitions, 77% (n = 69) on acceptability, 72% (n = 65) on limitations and challenges, and 61% (n = 55) on guidance. Data were synthesized into 17 potential trial reporting items: explicit statements on the use of surrogate end point(s) and justification for their use (items 1–6); methodological considerations, including whether sample size calculations were informed by surrogate validity (items 7–9); reporting of results for composite outcomes containing a surrogate end point (item 10); discussion and interpretation of findings (items 11–14); plans for confirmatory studies, collecting data on the surrogate end point and target outcome, and data sharing (items 15–16); and informing trial participants about using surrogate end points (item 17). Conclusion The review identified and synthesized items on the use of surrogate end points in trials; these will inform the development of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–SURROGATE and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–SURROGATE extensions.</p

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)—thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence.</p