Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

The MARECA (national study of management of breast cancer locoregional recurrence and oncological outcomes) study: protocol for a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Background: Despite a UK 5-year breast cancer survival rate of 86.6%, patients may develop breast cancer recurrence within the same breast after breast conserving surgery, as well as in the remaining skin or chest wall after mastectomy or in the ipsilateral lymph glands. These recurrences, collectively termed locoregional recurrence (LRR), occur in around 8% of patients within 10 years of their original diagnosis. Currently, there is a lack of robust information on the presentation and prevalence of LRR with no UK-specific clinical guidelines available for the optimal management of this patient group. Additionally, there is a need to identify patterns of LRR presentation and their progression, which will enable prognostic factors to be determined. This will subsequently enable the tailoring of treatment and improve patient outcome. Methods: The MARECA study is a prospective, multicentre cohort study recruiting patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- associated distant metastases. Over 50 UK breast units are participating in the study with the aim of recruiting at least 500 patients over a recruitment period of 24 months. The data collected will detail the tumour pathology, imaging results, surgical treatment, radiotherapy and systemic therapy of the primary and recurrent breast cancer. Study follow-up will be for up to 5 years following LRR diagnosis to determine subsequent oncological outcomes and evaluate potential prognostic factors. Discussion: This study will address the current knowledge gap and identify subgroups of patients who have less successful treatment outcomes. The results will determine the current management of LRR and the prognosis of patients diagnosed with breast cancer LRR +/- distant metastases in the UK, with the aim of establishing best practice and informing future national guidelines. The results will direct future research and inform the design of additional interventional trials and translational studies.

The association of breast surgery ASPIRE: breast pain pathway rapid evaluation project - study protocol.

Background: Breast pain accounts for 20-40% of new referrals to breast units in the UK and these patients have a very low risk of breast cancer. Patients have previously been assessed in resource-intensive, cancer-exclusion, one stop clinics, which are now failing to meet government targets due to excessive demand. UK Breast units are increasingly piloting Breast Pain-only Pathways (BPP) to assess these patients, and there is no consensus for the optimal pathway. The aim of this prospective multicentre study is to assess the safety and patient satisfaction of different BPPs to inform future BPP design and implementation. Methods: All UK breast units will be invited to join the ASPIRE study between January 2023 and December 2023. Units with a BPP are invited to submit their pathway for evaluation; and those without a BPP who see patients with breast pain-only in a one stop clinics setting are also invited to join the study to evaluate the traditional pathway model concurrently. Patient satisfaction assessments will be collected after their initial consultation and patient outcomes, including subsequent cancer diagnosis, will be followed up at 12 months to determine if they have cancer diagnosis after discharge to assess pathway safety.

Mastitis and Mammary Abscess Management Audit (MAMMA) in the UK and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentre prospective audit was to describe the current practice in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses in the UK and Ireland, with a specific focus on rates of surgical intervention. METHODS: This audit was conducted in two phases from August 2020 to August 2021; a phase 1 practice survey and a phase 2 prospective audit. Primary outcome measurements for phase 2 included patient management pathway characteristics and treatment type (medical/radiological/surgical). RESULTS: A total of 69 hospitals participated in phase 2 (1312 patients). The key findings were a high overall rate of incision and drainage (21.0 per cent) and a lower than anticipated proportion of ultrasound-guided aspiration of breast abscesses (61.0 per cent). Significant variations were observed regarding the rate of incision and drainage (range 0-100 per cent; P < 0.001) and the rate of needle aspiration (range 12.5-100 per cent; P < 0.001) between individual units. Overall, 22.5 per cent of patients were admitted for inpatient treatment, out of whom which 72.9 per cent were commenced on intravenous antibiotics. The odds of undergoing incision and drainage for a breast abscess or being admitted for inpatient treatment were significantly higher if patients presented at the weekend compared with a weekday (P ≤ 0.023). Breast specialists reviewed 40.9 per cent of all patients directly, despite the majority of patients (74.2 per cent) presenting within working hours on weekdays. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in practice exists in the management of mastitis and breast abscesses, with high rates of incision and drainage in certain regions of the UK. There is an urgent need for a national best-practice toolbox to minimize practice variation and standardize patient care.

Mastitis and breast abscess is a painful infection of the breast. It is an extremely common breast problem. One in three women can get this condition at some stage in their life. To treat a breast abscess, the pus inside should be drained out of the body. This can be done either by cutting into the breast using surgery or by inserting a fine needle using an ultrasonography scan (which uses ultrasound). Fine-needle drainage has the benefit that it does not require admission to hospital. Surgery can cause the breast to look misshapen. It is unknown which method is used more often in the UK and Ireland. The aim of this study was to describe how mastitis and breast abscesses are treated in the UK and Ireland. This study involved a survey of practice (phase 1) and collection of data, which are routinely recorded for these patients (phase 2). This study involved 69 hospitals and 1312 patient records. One in five women had an operation for a breast abscess. This was higher than expected. Six in 10 women had a pus drainage using a fine needle. The chance of having an operation depended on the hospital. Women that came to hospital at the weekend were almost twice as likely to have an operation. One in five women were admitted to hospital. The chances of that more than doubled if a woman came to hospital at the weekend. There are differences in treatment of mastitis and breast abscesses across the UK and Ireland. Changes need to be put in place to make access to treatment more equal.

Outcomes of Women Undergoing Mastectomy for Unilateral Breast Cancer Who Elect to Undergo Contralateral Mastectomy for Symmetry: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction (BR) is routinely offered to restore symmetry after mastectomy for breast cancer. Not all women, however, may want reconstructive surgery. A contralateral mastectomy (CM) to achieve "flat symmetry" can be an excellent alternative, but surgeons are often reluctant to offer this procedure. This systematic review aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding the outcomes of CM as the first step to developing guidelines in this area. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched to identify primary research studies, published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 August 2022, evaluating clinical or patient-reported outcomes for women who underwent a CM without reconstruction after a mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer. Simple descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data, and content analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: The study included 15 studies (13 quantitative, 1 qualitative, and 1 mixed-methods) evaluating outcomes for at least 1954 women who underwent a bilateral mastectomy without reconstruction (BM) after unilateral breast cancer. The risk of surgical complications after BM was higher than after unilateral mastectomy without reconstruction (UM) but significantly less than after BR. Satisfaction with the decision for BM was high in all the studies. Key themes relating to flat denial, stigma, and gender-based assumptions were identified. CONCLUSION: Women electing to undergo BM reported high levels of satisfaction with their decision and complication rates similar to those for UM. Further study is needed to comprehensively explore the outcomes for women seeking BM, but these data should give surgeons confidence to offer the procedure as an alternative option for symmetry after unilateral mastectomy for breast cancer. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022353689).

Long-term patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is offered to improve quality of life for women after mastectomy for breast cancer, but information regarding the long-term patient-reported outcomes of different reconstruction procedures is currently lacking. The Brighter study aimed to evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) in a population-based cohort. METHODS: Women who underwent mastectomy with IBR for breast cancer in England between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 were identified from National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics. Surviving women were invited to complete the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L™, and ICECAP-A at least 12 years after the index procedure. Questionnaires were scored according to developers' instructions and compared by IBR type. RESULTS: Some 1236 women underwent IBR; 343 (27.8 per cent) had 2-stage expander/implant, 630 (51.0 per cent) latissimus dorsi, and 263 (21.3 per cent) abdominal flap reconstructions, with a mean(s.d.) follow-up of 13.3(0.5) years. Women who underwent abdominal flap reconstruction reported higher scores in all BREAST-Q domains than those who had other procedures. These differences remained statistically significant and clinically meaningful after adjusting for age, ethnicity, geographical region, socioeconomic status, smoking, BMI, and complications. The greatest difference was seen in scores for satisfaction with breasts; women who had abdominal flap reconstructions reported scores that were 13.17 (95 per cent c.i. 9.48 to 16.87) points; P < 0.001) higher than those among women who had two-stage expander/implant procedures. Women who underwent latissimus dorsi reconstruction reported significantly more pain/discomfort on the EQ-5D-5L™, but no other differences between procedures were seen. CONCLUSION: Long-term patient-reported outcomes are significantly better following abdominal flap reconstruction than other traditional procedure types. These findings should be shared with women considering IBR to help them make informed decisions about their surgical options.

Secondary healthcare costs after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for women with breast cancer in England: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy can improve the quality of life for women with breast cancer and rates are increasing. Long-term inpatient costs of care were estimated to understand the impact of different immediate breast reconstruction procedures on healthcare expenditure. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data were used to identify women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in English National Health Service hospitals (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2015) and any subsequent procedures performed to revise, replace, or complete the breast reconstruction. Costs were assigned to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data using the Healthcare Resource Group 2020/21 National Costs Grouper. Generalized linear models were used to estimate mean cumulative costs for five immediate breast reconstruction procedures over 3 and 8 years, adjusting for covariates (age/ethnicity/deprivation). RESULTS: A total of 16 890 women underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: implant (5192; 30.7 per cent), expander (2826; 16.7 per cent), autologous latissimus dorsi flap (2372; 14.0 per cent), latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (3109; 18.4 per cent), and abdominal free-flap reconstruction (3391; 20.1 per cent). The mean (95 per cent c.i.) cumulative cost was lowest for latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant reconstruction (€20 103 (€19 582 to €20 625)) over 3 years and highest for abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€27 560 (€27 037 to €28 083)). Over 8 years, expander (€29 140 (€27 659 to €30 621)) and latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (€29 312 (€27 622 to €31 003)) reconstructions were the least expensive, while abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€34 536 (€32 958 to €36 113)) remained the most expensive, despite having lower costs for revisions and secondary reconstructions. This was driven primarily by the cost of the index procedure (€5435 (expander reconstruction) to €15 106 (abdominal free-flap reconstruction)). CONCLUSION: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care Healthcare Resource Group data provided a comprehensive longitudinal cost assessment of secondary care. Although abdominal free-flap reconstruction was the most expensive option, higher costs of the index procedure need to be balanced against ongoing long-term costs of revisions/secondary reconstructions, which are higher after implant-based procedures.

Uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of patients with breast cancer.

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register.

Current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the UK: results of the ANTHEM national practice questionnaire.

PURPOSE: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined. RESULTS: 58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12-24 months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units. CONCLUSIONS: OPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

Study protocol for two pilot randomised controlled trials aimed at increasing physical activity using electrically assisted bicycles to enhance prostate or breast cancer survival.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 1.4 and 2.3 million new cases of prostate cancer and breast cancer respectively were diagnosed globally. In the UK, prostate cancer is the most common male cancer, while breast cancer is the most common female cancer. Engaging in physical activity (PA) is a key component of treatment. However, rates of PA are low in these clinical populations. This paper describes the protocol of CRANK-P and CRANK-B, two pilot randomised controlled trials, involving an e-cycling intervention aimed at increasing PA in individuals with prostate cancer or breast cancer respectively. METHODS: These two trials are single-centre, stratified, parallel-group, two-arm randomised waitlist-controlled pilot trials in which forty individuals with prostate cancer (CRANK-P) and forty individuals with breast cancer (CRANK-B) will be randomly assigned, in a 1:1 allocation ratio, to an e-cycling intervention or waitlist control. The intervention consists of e-bike training with a certified cycle instructor, followed by the provision of an e-bike for 12 weeks. Following the intervention period, participants in the e-bike condition will be directed to community-based initiatives through which they can access an e-bike. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), immediately post intervention (T1) and at 3-month follow-up (T2). In addition, in the intervention group, data will be collected during the intervention and follow-up periods. Quantitative and qualitative methods will be used. The primary objectives are to determine effective recruitment strategies, establish recruitment and consent rates, adherence and retention in the study, and determine the feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures and intervention. The potential impact of the intervention on clinical, physiological and behavioural outcomes will be assessed to examine intervention promise. Data analyses will be descriptive. DISCUSSION: The findings from these trials will provide information on trial feasibility and highlight the potential of e-cycling as a strategy to positively impact the health and behaviour of individuals with prostate cancer and breast cancer. If appropriate, this information can be used to design and deliver a fully powered definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRANK-B: [ISRCTN39112034]. CRANK-P [ISRCTN42852156]. Registered [08/04/2022] https://www.isrctn.com .

Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Innovative surgical procedures and devices are often modified throughout their development and introduction into clinical practice. A systematic approach to reporting modifications may support shared learning and foster safe and transparent innovation. Definitions of 'modifications', and how they are conceptualized and classified so they can be reported and shared effectively, however, are lacking. This study aimed to explore and summarize existing definitions, perceptions, classifications and views on modification reporting to develop a conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Targeted searches and two database searches were performed to identify relevant opinion pieces and review articles. Included were articles relating to modifications to surgical procedures/devices. Data regarding definitions, perceptions and classifications of modifications, and views on modification reporting were extracted verbatim. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which informed development of the conceptual framework. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included. Eight articles included systems for classifying modifications, but no articles reported an explicit definition of modifications. Some 13 themes relating to perception of modifications were identified. The derived conceptual framework comprises three overarching components: baseline data about modifications, details about modifications and impact/consequences of modifications. CONCLUSION: A conceptual framework for understanding and reporting modifications that occur during surgical innovation has been developed. This is a first necessary step to support consistent and transparent reporting of modifications, to facilitate shared learning and incremental innovation of surgical procedures/devices. Testing and operationalization is now needed to realize the value of this framework.

Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study.

PURPOSE: The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb-July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis. RESULTS: 1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32-81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7-8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months' treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR - 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients (n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month's duration of BrET. DISCUSSION: This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is performed to improve well-being for women who need mastectomy (removal of the breast) as part of breast cancer treatment. There are many different types of breast reconstruction operation, and it can be difficult for women to decide which operation, if any, is right for them. Information about the number of extra operations that a woman is likely to need after breast reconstruction surgery is an important factor in helping them make this decision. This study aimed to investigate the number of extra operations that women who had breast reconstruction needed by 3, 5, and 8 years after surgery, and how this differed by the type of breast reconstruction surgery they had. Routinely collected hospital record data were used to identify women having breast reconstruction at the time of mastectomy for breast cancer, and identify any extra operations performed for problems related to the reconstruction in the 8 years after the first operation. The number of extra operations performed after different types of breast reconstructions was compared at 3, 5, and 8 years after the mastectomy. Women who had implant-based reconstruction required more extra operations than those having reconstruction using their own tissue. They were also more likely to have the implant replaced with another type of breast reconstruction than women undergoing tissue-based reconstruction at 3, 5, and 8 years after the first surgery. This information should be discussed with women thinking about breast reconstruction to help them decide what type of operation would be best for them.

Localization Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions: Current Status, Knowledge Gaps, and Rationale for the MELODY Study (EUBREAST-4/iBRA-NET, NCT 05559411).

BACKGROUND: Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer. RESULTS: For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons' and radiologists' attitudes towards these techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies.

A Core Outcome Set for Seamless, Standardized Evaluation of Innovative Surgical Procedures and Devices (COHESIVE): A Patient and Professional Stakeholder Consensus Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a COS, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of novel surgical techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Agreement on the key outcomes to measure and report for safe and efficient surgical innovation is lacking, hindering transparency and risking patient harm. METHODS: (I) Generation of a list of outcome domains from published innovation-specific literature, policy/regulatory body documents, and surgeon interviews; (II) Prioritization of identified outcome domains using an international, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey; (III) Consensus meeting to agree the final COS. Participants were international stakeholders, including patients/public, surgeons, device manufacturers, regulators, trialists, methodologists, and journal editors. RESULTS: A total of 7972 verbatim outcomes were identified, categorized into 32 domains, and formatted into survey items/questions. Four hundred ten international participants (220 professionals, 190 patients/public) completed at least one round 1 survey item, of which 153 (69.5%) professionals and 116 (61.1%) patients completed at least one round 2 item. Twelve outcomes were scored "consensus in" ("very important" by ≥70% of patients and professionals) and 20 "no consensus." A consensus meeting, involvingcontext: modifications, unexpected disadvantages, device problems, technical procedure completion success, patients' experience relating to the procedure being innovative, surgeons'/operators' experience. Other domains relate to intended benefits, whether the overall desired effect was achieved and expected disadvantages. CONCLUSIONS: The COS is recommended for use in all studies before definitive randomized controlled trial evaluation to promote safe, transparent, and efficient surgical innovation.

A standardized measurement instrument was recommended for evaluating operator experience in complex healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVE: During development of complex surgical innovations, modifications occur to optimize safety and efficacy. Operators' experiences (how professionals feel undertaking the innovation) drive this process but comprehensive overviews of measures of this concept are lacking. This study identified and appraised measures to assess operators' experience of surgical innovation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: There were three phases: (1) Literature reviews identified measures of operators' experience and concepts measured were extracted and grouped into domains. (2) Quality appraisal was conducted to assess content validity of identified instruments and was supported by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology. Self-reported measurement instruments that had underdone formal development were eligible. Content validity was assessed using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for good content validity (rated sufficient/insufficient/indeterminate/inconsistent), informed by standards for measurement development and domains identified in phase 1. (3) Instruments determined suitable and of sufficient quality underwent supplemental appraisal in interviews with international multidisciplinary professionals and a focus group. RESULTS: Literature reviews identified 16 measurement instruments from 243 studies. Most assessed 'psychological' experiences and 'usability'. No instrument was specifically validated for innovative surgery. Three instruments were rated 'sufficient' (Surgery Task Load Index [SURG-TLX]) or 'indeterminate' (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Imperial Stress Assessment Tool). Twenty professionals were interviewed (seven female; 15 specialties; six countries) and the focus group included 10 participants (four professionals, six researchers). The SURG-TLX was considered the most relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible instrument. CONCLUSION: The SURG-TLX is preliminarily recommended to measure operators' experiences of innovation. Further work exploring its role and impact on surgical innovation is required.

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.

Results of shared learning of a new magnetic seed localisation device - A UK iBRA-NET breast cancer localisation study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared learning is imperative in the assessment and safe implementation of new healthcare interventions. Magnetic seeds (Magseed®) potentially offer logistical benefit over wire localisation for non-palpable breast lesions but few data exist on outcomes comparing these techniques. A national registration study (iBRA-NET) was conducted to collate device outcomes. In order to share learning, thematic analysis was conducted to ascertain early clinical experiences of Magseed® and wire guided localisation and explore how learning events may be applied to improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A qualitative study of 27 oncoplastic surgeons, radiologists and physicians was conducted in January 2020 to ascertain the feasibility and challenges associated with Magseed® versus wire breast localisation surgery. Four focus groups were asked to discuss experiences, concerns and shared learning outcomes which were tabulated and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified comparing Magseed® and wire localisation of breast lesions relating to preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative learning outcomes. Percutaneous Magseed® detection, instrument interference and potential seed or wire dislodgement were the most common issues identified. Clinician experience suggested Magseed® index lesion identification was non-inferior to wire placement and improved the patient pathway in terms of scheduling and multi-site insertion. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective shared learning suggested Magseed® offered additional non-clinical benefits over wire localisation, improving the efficiency of the patient pathway. Recommendations for improving breast localisation technique, appropriate patient selection and clinical practice through shared learning are discussed that may aid other surgeons in the adoption of this relatively new technique.

Shared Learning Utilizing Digital Methods in Surgery to Enhance Transparency in Surgical Innovation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical innovation can lead to important improvements in patient outcomes. Currently, information and knowledge about novel procedures and devices are disseminated informally and in an unstandardized way (eg, through social media). This can lead to ineffective and inefficient knowledge sharing among surgeons, which can result in the harmful repetition of mistakes and delay in the uptake of promising innovation. Improvements are needed in the way that learning in surgical innovation is shared through the development of novel, real-time methods, informed by a contemporary and comprehensive investigation of existing methods. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to explore the application of existing digital methods for training/education and feedback to surgeons in the context of performing invasive surgical procedures. This work will (1) summarize existing methods for shared learning in surgery and how they are characterized and operationalized, (2) examine the impact of their application, and (3) explore their benefits and barriers to implementation. The findings of this scoping review will inform the development of novel, real-time methods to optimize shared learning in surgical innovation. METHODS: This study will adhere to the recommended guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. A total of 6 different searches will be conducted within multiple sources (2 electronic databases, journals, social media, gray literature, commercial websites, and snowball searches) to comprehensively identify relevant articles and data. Searches will be limited to articles published in the English language within the last 5 years. Wherever possible, a 2-stage study selection process will be followed whereby the eligibility of articles will be assessed through the title, abstract, and full-text screening independently by 2 reviewers. Inclusion criteria will be articles providing data on (1) fully qualified theater staff involved in performing invasive procedures, (2) one or more methods for shared learning (ie, digital means for training/education and feedback), and (3) qualitative or quantitative evaluations of this method. Data will be extracted (10% double data extraction by an independent reviewer) into a piloted proforma and analyzed using descriptive statistics, narrative summaries, and principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study commenced in October 2021 and is planned to be completed in 2023. To date, systematic searches were applied to 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) and returned a total of 10,093 records. The results of this scoping review will be published as open access in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review of methods for shared learning in surgery is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive and up-to-date investigation that maps current information on this topic. Ultimately, efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge of novel procedures and devices has the potential to optimize the evaluation of early-phase surgical research and reduce harmful innovation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37544.