The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July-December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. RESULTS: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. CONCLUSIONS: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey.

INTRODUCTION: The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines. RESULTS: 81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

Clinical management of idiopathic mastalgia: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION Idiopathic mastalgia (benign breast pain of unknown origin) is often poorly managed because of its subjective nature and unclear aetiology. Mastalgia is a reason for up to 50% of breast outpatient referrals. Existing systematic reviews discuss dated treatment options that provide limited symptomatic relief. METHODS A systematic review was conducted for aetiology and treatment of idiopathic mastalgia in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidance. Databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database and the Clinical Trial Registry were searched (February 2016). RESULTS Reassurance plus bra-fitting advice provides relief for most women. If symptoms persist, addition of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provides relief in 70-92% of women. There is some benefit in reducing dietary coffee and fat intake. Medical treatments have serious side-effects (often androgenic or menopausal) and should be considered only in cases resistant to simpler measures. Dopamine agonists are useful, but less effective than endocrine treatments such as Danazol or Tamoxifen. Of the Selective Oestrogen Receptor Modulator drugs, Ormeloxifene appears most effective, but is not licenced in the United Kingdom. Relaxation therapy, acupuncture and kinesiology may be useful but currently lack good evidence of effectiveness. DISCUSSION First-line management of breast pain should be explanation, reassurance and a bra-fitting advice. Subsequent drug therapy should be balanced against its side-effects; topical NSAIDs and Ormeloxifene show greatest benefit with least side-effects. Newer agents (Ormeloxifene) currently being used for mastalgia in India could be considered in the developed world.

Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK. METHODS: A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined. RESULTS: 81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50-80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0-3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0-3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study: protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing new techniques of implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK. The introduction of techniques to augment the subpectoral pocket has revolutionised the procedure, but there is a lack of high-quality outcome data to describe the safety or effectiveness of these techniques. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way of comparing treatments, but surgical RCTs are challenging. The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study aims to determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic RCT to examine the effectiveness of approaches to IBBR. METHODS/DESIGN: The iBRA study is a trainee-led research collaborative project with four phases:Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practicePhase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients undergoing IBBR to evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomesPhase 3- an IBBR-RCT acceptability survey and qualitative work to explore patients' and surgeons' views of proposed trial designs and candidate outcomes.Phase 4 - phases 1 to 3 will inform the design and conduct of the future RCT All centres offering IBBR will be encouraged to participate by the breast and plastic surgical professional associations (Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons). Data collected will inform the feasibility of undertaking an RCT by defining current practice and exploring issues surrounding recruitment, selection of comparator arms, choice of primary outcome, sample size, selection criteria, trial conduct, methods of data collection and feasibility of using the trainee collaborative model to recruit patients and collect data. DISCUSSION: The preliminary work undertaken within the iBRA study will determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a definitive RCT in IBBR. It will work with the trainee collaborative to build capacity by creating an infrastructure of research-active breast and plastic surgeons which will facilitate future high-quality research that will ultimately improve outcomes for all women seeking reconstructive surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37664281.

Is axillary lymph node clearance required in node-positive breast cancer?

Although the majority of patients with breast cancer have clinically negative axillary nodes at preoperative assessment, around 15-20% of these women will have metastatic disease within the lymph nodes at operative sentinel node biopsy, and additional selective treatment to the axilla might be required. Local treatment to the axilla can include axillary node clearance or axillary radiotherapy. The recent results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial suggested that some women would be safe from recurrence without further axillary treatment if they have less than three involved sentinel nodes, with no extracapsular spread. We review the evidence base for management of the axilla after detection of a positive sentinel node, discuss the evidence for why micrometastatic disease requires systemic but not axillary therapy, and present data suggesting that axillary irradiation for macrometastases gives equivalent control to axillary node clearance, but causes less morbidity such as lymphoedema. Ongoing trials will confirm whether any further therapy can be omitted for all patients with low volume, sentinel-node macrometastases.

Absence of HER4 expression predicts recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

The type 1 tyrosine kinase receptor HER2 (c-erbB2/neu) is associated with resistance to hormone therapy and poor survival in invasive breast cancer, whereas HER4 expression is associated with endocrine responsiveness. Patterns of tyrosine kinase receptor coexpression may aid prediction of recurrence risk after surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Women who had undergone surgery for pure DCIS were studied. Out of 129 primary tumors, 39 had recurred and 90 had not recurred after 5 years of follow-up. Primary tumors were compared for HER2, HER3, and HER4, estrogen receptor, and Ki67 by immunohistochemistry. HER2 was expressed in 58%, HER3 in 49%, and HER4 in 63% of nonrecurrent DCIS, compared with HER2 expression in 82% (P = 0.008), HER3 expression in 71% (P = 0.04), and HER4 expression in 36% (P = 0.004) in DCIS that subsequently recurred. Dually expressing HER2/4 DCIS was more likely to be estrogen receptor positive than HER2-only-expressing DCIS (73% versus 53%; P = 0.05). HER2 expression was associated with a higher percentage and HER4 expression a significantly lower percentage of proliferating DCIS cells (median, 13.8% versus 8.4%; P = 0.001). Coexpression of HER2 with HER4 was associated with reduced recurrence compared with HER2-only positive DCIS (P = 0.003). This association remained significant when analyzing only high nuclear-grade DCIS (P = 0.015). Low nuclear grade, low proliferation rate and presence of HER4 expression were independent predictors of nonrecurrence. Potentially, HER4 expression may identify women who could avoid radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS.