Measuring the patient perspective on latissimus dorsi donor site outcomes following breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence about the long-term donor site outcome of latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction and no patient-reported outcome measures designed specifically for the procedure. METHODS: A prospective cohort of breast cancer patients having latissimus dorsi reconstruction after a mastectomy was recruited from 270 hospitals in the United Kingdom. An 18-month follow up questionnaire containing two novel scales was sent to consenting patients. The prevalence of aesthetic and functional morbidity at the donor site was described. The two new scales were refined using the Rasch measurement model and subsequently validated. RESULTS: 1,096 women completed the new scales. 78% of patients reported that no back appearance issues had bothered them "most of the time" or "all of the time" in the past two weeks. The equivalent figure for functional morbidity was 60%. Four items were eliminated following initial psychometric testing. This produced an 8-item Back Appearance scale and an 11-item Back and Shoulder Function scale. Both scales showed adequate fit to the Rasch measurement model. Higher levels of aesthetic and functional bother were observed for completely autologous procedures versus those where latissimus dorsi reconstruction was used to cover an implant (p <0.05). Higher levels of aesthetic bother were observed in women who had suffered a perioperative complication at the donor site (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: These results can inform patients of the morbidity associated with latissimus dorsi reconstruction. The new scales can be used to compare groups undergoing different variations of the procedure and to monitor individual patients

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.

Trends in the use of bilateral mastectomy in England from 2002 to 2011: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics.

OBJECTIVES: For healthy women at high risk of developing breast cancer, a bilateral mastectomy can reduce future risk. For women who already have unilateral breast cancer, removing the contralateral healthy breast is more difficult to justify. We examined trends in the number of women who had a bilateral mastectomy in England between 2002 and 2011. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the Hospital Episode Statistics database. SETTING: NHS hospital trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged between 18 and 80 years who had a bilateral mastectomy (or a contralateral mastectomy within 24 months of unilateral mastectomy) with or without a diagnosis of breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and incidence of women without breast cancer who had a bilateral mastectomy; number and proportion who had a bilateral mastectomy as their first breast cancer operation, and the proportion of those undergoing bilateral mastectomy who had immediate breast reconstruction. RESULTS: Among women without breast cancer, the number who had a bilateral mastectomy increased from 71 in 2002 to 255 in 2011 (annual incidence rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.18). In women with breast cancer, the number rose from 529 to 931, an increase from 2% to 3.1% of first operations (OR for annual increase 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08). Across both groups, rates of immediate breast reconstruction roughly doubled and reached 90% among women without breast cancer in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: The number of women who had a bilateral mastectomy nearly doubled over the last decade, and more than tripled among women without breast cancer. This coincided with an increase in the use of immediate breast reconstruction

Findings of a national comparative audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery in England.

OBJECTIVES: This paper summarises the findings of a national audit of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery carried out in England. It describes patterns of treatment, and the clinical and patient-reported quality of life outcomes associated with these types of procedure. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: All 150 National Health Service hospital groups (NHS trusts) in England that provided mastectomy or breast reconstruction surgery, along with six NHS trusts in Wales and Scotland and 114 independent hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16 years and over undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction, or primary delayed breast reconstruction, between 1st January 2008 and 31st March 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reconstructive utilisation, post-operative complications and sequelae, and patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, 21% of the 16,485 women who had mastectomy underwent immediate reconstruction. However, the proportion varied between regions from 9% to 43% (p < 0.001). Levels of patient satisfaction with information, choice and the quality of care were high. The proportion of women who experienced local complications was 10.30% (95% CI 9.78-10.84) for mastectomy surgery, ranged from 11.02% (9.31-12.92) to 18.24% (14.80-22.10) for different immediate reconstructive procedures, and from 5.00% (2.76-8.25) to 19.86% (16.21-23.94) for types of delayed reconstruction. Breast appearance and overall well-being scores reported 18 months after surgery were higher among women having immediate breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy only. Postoperative outcomes were similar across providers.. CONCLUSIONS: The Audit found women were highly satisfied with their peri-operative care, with hospital providers achieving similar outcomes. English providers should examine how to reduce the variation in rates of immediate reconstruction

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