Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Better Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are often highly affected by disease and treatment, resulting in impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Therefore, evaluation of patients' psychosocial and functional outcomes can be facilitated by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). By providing the patients' own perspectives, PROMs are crucial to improving patient-centered care. This study aimed to improve understanding of the perceived value of PROMs in HNC care and how to optimize their clinical value based on patients' and multidisciplinary healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives. METHODS: Population-based surveys among patients with HNC through their patient association and among HCPs nationwide through the Dutch Head and Neck Audit. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients and 40 multidisciplinary HCPs from all 14 nationwide HNC centers (100%) responded. For patients, the most important element of patient-reported outcome collection systems was including a call to action for those with worse-than-average scores (28%), whereas clinicians found discussing scores during clinical visits the most important (39%). Although 16% of clinicians found short completion time the most important element, none of the patients selected completion time as most important. Additionally, 17% of patients stated completion time was not an issue, provided clinicians would use the outcomes for clinical purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients and clinicians acknowledged the value of patient-reported outcomes, patients would like to be more involved in the clinical implications of their outcomes. Enhancing patients' involvement by a call to action and providing feedback on their scores during outpatient clinic visits may improve the clinical value of PROMs.

Breast cancer patients' needs and perspectives on a one-on-one peer support program: quantitative and qualitative analyses.

PURPOSE: Although peer support programs as a health resource have become increasingly popular, only limited studies evaluated the added value of one-on-one peer support for breast cancer patients. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap by focusing on two related research topics. First, we evaluated emotional well-being and (unmet) needs regarding supportive care. Second, we evaluated patients' perspectives on their experiences after having one-on-one peer support. METHODS: A quantitative analysis was conducted to provide insight in patients' symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and supportive care needs (CaSUN-questionnaire). Furthermore, approximately 1 year after the implementation of a one-on-one peer support program, focus groups were conducted to evaluate patients' perspectives regarding one-on-one peer support. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five of 537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2019 and 2020 completed the questionnaires. Quantitative analysis showed increased symptoms of anxiety and depression among breast cancer patients and lower scores on all EORTC-QLQ-C30 domains compared to the Dutch normative population. Of all patients, 27.6% (95%CI = 0.22-0.34) reported to have unmet needs regarding emotional support and 23.1% (95%CI = 0.18-0.29) reported an unmet need to talk to someone who has experienced breast cancer. For the qualitative analysis, 19 breast cancer patients who were taking part in the one-on-one peer support program participated in three focus groups. Benefits, limitations, and wishes regarding the one-on-one peer support program were discussed. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients showed increased anxiety and depression and lower quality of life, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning compared to the Dutch normative population. Almost one-third of breast cancer patients reported unmet needs regarding emotional support and a desire to talk to other breast cancer patients. These (unmet) needs can successfully be met by providing a low-threshold one-on-one peer support program.

Physical and mental health of breast cancer patients and survivors before and during successive SARS-CoV-2-infection waves.

PURPOSE: During the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave, a deterioration in emotional well-being and increased need for mental health care were observed among patients treated or being treated for breast cancer. In this follow-up study, we assessed patient-reported quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave in a large, representative cohort. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. To assess patient-reported QoL, physical functioning and psychosocial well-being, COVID-19-specific surveys were completed by patients during the first and second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves (April and November 2020, respectively). An identical survey was completed by a comparable reference population during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves. All surveys included the validated EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, HADS and "De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness" questionnaires. Pre-COVID-19 EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and HADS outcomes were available from UMBRELLA. Response rates were 69.3% (n = 1106/1595) during the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave and 50.9% (n = 822/1614) during the second wave. A total of 696 patients responded during both SARS-CoV-2-infection waves and were included in the analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave to PROs during the first wave. Moreover, PROs reported by all patients during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave (n = 822) were compared to PROs of a similar non-cancer reference population (n = 241) and to their pre-COVID-19 PROs. RESULTS: Patient-reported QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer remained stable or improved from the first to the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. The proportion of emotional loneliness reduced from 37.6 to 29.9% of patients. Compared to a similar non-cancer reference population, physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning, future perspectives and symptoms of dyspnea and insomnia were worse in patients treated or being treated for breast cancer during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. PROs in the second wave were similar to pre-COVID-19 PROs. CONCLUSION: Although patients scored overall worse than individuals without breast cancer, QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being did not deteriorate between the first and second wave. During the second wave, PROs were similar to pre-COVID-19 values. Overall, current findings are cautiously reassuring for future mental health of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2 -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR. LAY SUMMERY: Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Breast Cancer Patients Through Fluorescent Imaging Using Indocyanine Green: The INFLUENCE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the (sentinel) lymph node detection rate of indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescent imaging versus standard-of-care 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-mapping. BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer is sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-guided surgery using radioisotope technetium ( 99m Tc), sometimes combined with blue dye. A promising alternative is fluorescent imaging using ICG. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we enrolled 102 consecutive patients with invasive early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer. Patients were planned for breast conserving surgery and SLNB between August 2020 and June 2021. The day or morning before surgery, patients were injected with 99m Tc-nanocolloid. In each patient, SLNB was first performed using ICG-fluorescent imaging, after which excised lymph nodes were tested with the gamma-probe for 99m Tc-uptake ex vivo, and the axilla was checked for residual 99m Tc-activity. The detection rate was defined as the proportion of patients in whom at least 1 (S)LN was detected with either tracer. RESULTS: In total, 103 SLNBs were analyzed. The detection rate of ICG-fluorescence was 96.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI)=90.4%-98.9%] versus 86.4% (95% CI=78.3%-92.4%) for 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. The detection rate for pathological lymph nodes was 86.7% (95% CI=59.5%-98.3%) for both ICG and 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. A median of 2 lymph nodes were removed. ICG-fluorescent imaging did not increase detection time. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-fluorescence showed a higher (S)LN detection rate than 99m Tc-nanocoilloid, and equal detection rate for pathological (S)LNs. ICG-fluorescence may be used as a safe and effective alternative to 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for SLNB in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision in individuals (being) treated for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision among patients (being) treated for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Longitudinal study within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA cohort of patients (being) treated for breast cancer. All cohort participants enrolled in UMBRELLA between October 2013 and November 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., April 2020 and November 2020, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 1106 (69.3%) and 822 (50.9%) cohort participants completed the survey in the first and second wave, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing that their treatment or follow-up care was affected due to COVID-19 decreased from 28.4% (n = 198) in April 2020 to 14.8% (n = 103) in November 2020. Throughout the pandemic, one or more hospital consultations were postponed in 10.0% (n = 82) of all patients and changed into a teleconsultation in 23.1% (n = 190). The proportion of patients who experienced a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner due to COVID-19 decreased from 29.9% (n = 204) in the first wave to 20.8% (n = 145) in the second wave. In-person consultations remained most preferred in 35.2% (n = 289) of all patients. Nearly half of all patients (48.3%, n = 396) indicated that telehealth would be a useful alternative for in-person consultations in future. CONCLUSION: Perceived access to health care has improved substantially throughout the pandemic. Digital care is well received by patients (being) treated for breast cancer.

Clinical characteristics associated with pain in patients with peripheral vascular malformations.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular malformations (VM) can negatively impact the patient's quality of life (QoL). Pain is a common problem in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors associated with pain and to assess how pain affects QoL. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary vascular anomaly expertise center. Between June and December 2020, all patients from our local database (334 adults and 189 children) with peripheral VMs were invited to complete the Outcome Measures for VAscular MAlformations questionnaire to evaluate the presence, frequency, and intensity of pain. Additionally, patients were asked to complete several Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scales to evaluate their QoL. Risk factors associated with pain were identified in bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. QoL domains were compared between patients who experienced pain and patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients completed the questionnaire about pain and 133 patients completed all QoL questionnaires. Approximately one-half of the patients (52%) reported pain in the past four weeks and 57% of these patients reported pain daily or several times a week. Female sex (P = .009), lesions located in the upper extremity (P < .001) or lower extremity (P < .001), and intramuscular/intraosseous lesions (P = .004) were independently associated with the presence of pain. The following QoL domains were diminished in patients who experienced pain in comparison with patients who did not: pain interference (P < .001), physical functioning (P < .001), and social participation (P < .001) in adults, and pain interference (P = .001), mobility (P = .001), and anxiety (P = .024) in children. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is a frequently reported complaint in patients with VMs and is present in approximately one-half of the patients. Patients with lesions located in the upper or lower extremity, intramuscular/intraosseous lesions, and female patients are more likely to experience pain. The presence of pain negatively impacted patients' QoL. Although VM are a benign condition and expectative management is frequently applied, our study shows that pain is a serious concern and needs to be actively assessed. Pain is a sign of various etiologies and should be examined to properly treat the pain.

Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. METHODS: Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture" and the smallest for "coating." All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

(Ex-)breast cancer patients with (pre-existing) symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with (perceived) access to health care among (ex-)breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional study within a large prospective, multicenter cohort of (ex-)breast cancer patients, i.e., UMBRELLA. All participants enrolled in the UMBRELLA cohort between October 2013 and April 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 1051 (66.0%) participants completed the survey. During COVID-19, 284 (27.0%) participants reported clinically relevant increased levels of anxiety and/or depression, i.e., total HADS score ≥ 12. Participants with anxiety and/or depression reported statistically significant higher barriers to contact their general practitioner (47.5% vs. 25.0%, resp.) and breast cancer physicians (26.8% vs. 11.2%, resp.) compared to participants without these symptoms. In addition, a higher proportion of participants with anxiety and/or depression reported that their current treatment or (after)care was affected by COVID-19 compared to those without these symptoms (32.7% vs. 20.5%, resp.). Factors independently associated with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 were pre-existent anxiety (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.1-9.2) or depression (OR 6.0, 95% CI 3.5-10.2). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, (ex-)breast cancer patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers. Also, they more often report that their health care was affected by COVID-19. Risk factors for anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 are pre-existent symptoms of anxiety or depression. Extra attention-including mental health support-is needed for this group.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes data to inform oncology clinical decision making: Introducing the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module.

BACKGROUND: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess patients with head and neck cancer have methodologic and content deficiencies. Herein, the development of a PROM that meets a range of clinical and research needs across head and neck oncology is described. METHODS: After development of the conceptual framework, which involved a literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and expert input, patients with head and neck cancer who were treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were recruited by their surgeon. The FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module was completed by patients in the clinic or was sent by mail. Rasch measurement theory analysis was used for item selection for final scale development and to examine reliability and validity. Scale scores for surgical defect and adjuvant therapy were compared with the cohort average to assess clinical applicability. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 219 patients who completed the draft scales. Fourteen independently functioning scales were analyzed. Item fit was good for all 102 items, and all items had ordered thresholds. Scale reliability was acceptable (person separation index was >0.75 for all scales; Cronbach α values were >.87 for all scales; test-retest ranged from 0.86 to 0.96). The scales performed well in a clinically predictable way, demonstrating functional and psychosocial differences across disease sites and with adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The scales forming the FACE-Q Head and Neck Cancer Module were found to be clinically relevant and scientifically sound. This new PROM now is validated and ready for use in research and clinical care.

Just-in-time consent: The ethical case for an alternative to traditional informed consent in randomized trials comparing an experimental intervention with usual care.

Informed consent for randomized trials often causes significant and persistent anxiety, distress and confusion to patients. Where an experimental treatment is compared to a standard care control, much of this burden is potentially avoidable in the control group. We propose a "just-in-time" consent in which consent discussions take place in two stages: an initial consent to research from all participants and a later specific consent to randomized treatment only from those assigned to the experimental intervention. All patients are first approached and informed about research procedures, such as questionnaires or tests. They are also informed that they might be randomly selected to receive an experimental treatment and that, if selected, they can learn more about the treatment and decide whether or not to accept it at that time. After randomization, control patients undergo standard clinical consent whereas patients randomized to the experimental procedure undergo a second consent discussion. Analysis would be by intent-to-treat, which protects the trial from selection bias, although not from poor acceptance of experimental treatment. The advantages of just-in-time consent stem from the fact that only patients randomized to the experimental treatment are subject to a discussion of that intervention. We hypothesize that this will reduce much of the patient's burden associated with the consent process, such as decisional anxiety, confusion and information overload. We recommend well-controlled studies to compare just-in-time and traditional consent, with endpoints to include characteristics of participants, distress and anxiety and participants' understanding of research procedures.

Autologous breast reconstruction in sickle cell trait: A fine line between success & failure.

Autologous breast reconstructions are increasingly being performed. While increased risks for flap loss after free tissue transfer (FTT) in sickle cell patients are known to most plastic surgeons, risks for patients with sickle cell trait (SCT) are less known. Unfortunately, recommendations to prevent complications after FTT in SCT are still scarce. We present additional and novel surgical measures that we took aiming to enhance probabilities for successful FTT in a SCT patient undergoing autologous breast reconstruction. This is only the second case report describing a successful FTT without flap necrosis/loss in a patient with SCT, and the first successful report involving FTT in the breast.

Patient Preferences for Minimally Invasive and Open Locoregional Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive or minimally invasive treatments are being developed as alternatives to surgery for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Patients' preferences with regard to these new treatments have not been investigated. OBJECTIVES: To assess preferences of patients with breast cancer and of healthy women regarding these new techniques, compared with conventional surgical treatments. METHODS: Six hypothetical breast cancer treatment-outcome scenarios were developed: three standard surgical scenarios (mastectomy, mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction, and breast-conserving therapy [BCT]) and three minimally invasive or noninvasive scenarios (radiofrequency ablation, magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation, and single-dose ablative radiotherapy). Participants rated treatment-outcome scenarios by visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO). The Friedman and post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test whether scores were significantly different from BCT. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients with breast cancer and 50 healthy volunteers participated. Overall, BCT was rated the highest in terms of VAS (0.80) and TTO (0.90) scores. After stratification, BCT ranked the highest in most subgroups, with the exception of healthy individuals, who had given the highest score to ablative boost (VAS, 0.80; TTO, 0.88). Mastectomy with immediate reconstruction was the least preferred in most subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed no significant preference for minimally invasive treatment for breast cancer. Using hypothetical scenarios, breast cancer survivors attributed the highest scores to BCT, whereas healthy volunteers showed a slight preference for minimally invasive treatments.

Brief Report: Staged-informed Consent in the Cohort Multiple Randomized Controlled Trial Design.

The "cohort multiple randomized controlled trial," a new design for pragmatic trials, embeds multiple trials within a cohort. The cohort multiple RCT is an attractive alternative to conventional RCTs in fields where recruitment is slow, multiple new (competing) interventions for the same condition have to be tested, new interventions are highly preferred by patients and doctors, and the risk of disappointment bias, cross-over, and contamination is considerable. To prevent these unwanted effects, the cohort multiple RCT provides information on randomization to the intervention group/arm only, and only after randomization (i.e., prerandomization). To some, especially in a clinical setting, this is not ethically acceptable. In this article, we argue that prerandomization in the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) can be avoided by adopting a staged-informed consent procedure. In the first stage, at entry into the cohort, all potential participants are asked for their informed consent to participate in a cohort study and broad consent to be either randomly selected to be approached for experimental interventions or to serve as control without further notice during participation in the cohort. In a second stage, at the initiation of an RCT within the cohort, informed consent to receive the intervention is then only sought in those randomly selected for the intervention arm. At the third stage, after completion of each RCT, all cohort participants receive aggregate disclosure of trial results. This staged-informed consent procedure avoids prerandomization in cmRCT and aims to keep participants actively engaged in the research process.

The persistent embryonic vein in Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome.

Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS) is a congenital malformation syndrome with prominent vascular anomalies. A persistent embryonic vein (PEV) may be located on the affected leg(s) of patients with KTS. Our understanding of PEVs of the legs is limited and their nomenclature is confusing. The objective of this study was to obtain further insight in the prevalence, nomenclature and etiology of PEVs of the legs in KTS and to propose a standardized description of anomalous leg veins in KTS. We investigated 70 KTS patients for the presence of PEVs (lateral marginal vein, LMV) of the legs by duplex ultrasonography. We performed histopathological analysis of a surgically excised PEV (LMV) of a typical KTS patient, and we conducted an extensive literature study. Duplex ultrasonography showed LMVs in 12/70 (17.1%) patients. The terms used to describe PEVs in the leg are quite variable, while indicating only two types: lateral marginal vein (LMV) and persistent sciatic vein (PSV). The histology of the excised LMV showed remarkable similarity with that of varicose veins found in the general population. In conclusion, the prevalence of LMVs in our KTS cohort is 17.1%. Two PEVs can be found in the legs and we propose nomenclature based on anatomical criteria, thereby using only the terms persistent lateral marginal vein and persistent sciatic vein, combined with the patency of the deep venous system. We hypothesize that PEVs are most likely caused by a genetic defect leading to abnormal venous pattern formation, which is further supported by our histopathological findings.

Revision Incidence after Immediate Direct-to-Implant versus Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using National Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: In immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), large variation is observed in current practices between a direct-to-implant and a two-stage approach (insertion of a breast implant after a tissue expander). This population-based study aimed to compare unplanned short- and long-term revision incidence between direct-to-implant and two-stage IBBR in The Netherlands. METHODS: All patients who underwent immediate IBBR following a mastectomy between 2015 and 2019 were selected from the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Short- and long-term unplanned revision incidences were studied per immediate IBBR, including revision indications and the total number of additional operations. Confounding by indication was limited using propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 4512 breast implants (3948 women) were included, of which 2100 (47%) were for direct-to-implant IBBR and 2412 (53%) were for two-stage IBBR. Median (IQR) follow-up was 29 months (range, 16 to 45 months) and 33 months (range, 21 to 47 months), respectively. Short-term revision incidence was 4.0% and 11.7%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.42%). Long-term revision incidence was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2 to 12.1%) and 16.4% (95% CI, 14.8 to 17.9%), respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, similar results were found. In the direct-to-implant group, more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations than in the two-stage group. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned revision surgery occurred less often after direct-to-implant IBBR, and more breasts were reconstructed within the planned number of operations compared to two-stage IBBR. These results, based on real-world data, are important for improving patient counseling and shared decision-making. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Ensuring access to post-cancer breast reconstructions: COVID-19 lessons from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted breast implant surgery for oncological and non-oncological patients worldwide. This population-based study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to reconstructive and cosmetic breast implant surgery in the Netherlands using real-world data to describe trends, and to identify lessons to prevent future capacity problems within (inter)national healthcare. METHODS: This longitudinal study included patients undergoing breast implant surgery from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. For 2020, the first COVID-19 wave, intermediate period, and second wave were defined. We compared data from during the pandemic to a pre-pandemic (2019) reference year, assessing differences in the number of registered breast implants, and patient and surgery-related characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 34133 breast implants (17459 patients) were included. Compared to 2019, fewer implants were registered for post-cancer (n=484; -14.7%), cosmetic (n=480; -3.6%), and gender-affirming indications (n=104; -38.0%) during 2020. Fewer implants were registered in academic (n=196; -22.0%) and regional hospitals (n=1591; -16.5%), but more in private clinics (n=725; +10.1%). After the first wave, up to twice as many implants were registered in private clinics compared to 2019. No differences were found in characteristics of patients undergoing surgery in 2020 versus 2019. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based reconstructive and gender-affirming surgery were heavily impacted during the pandemic, while private-clinic-based cosmetic surgery quickly recovered. These outcomes are useful to fuel discussions about how healthcare could be reorganized in times of capacity problems. We suggest exploring options to deploy private clinics for ambulatory surgery aiming to keep hospital capacity available for acutely ill patients.

Efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accurate tumour localization is crucial for precise surgical targeting and complete tumour removal. Indocyanine green fluorescence, an increasingly used technique in oncological surgery, has shown promise in localizing non-palpable breast tumours. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, including studies from 2012 to 2023. Studies reporting the proportion of breast tumours identified using indocyanine green fluorescence were included. The quality of the studies and their risk of bias were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies ('MINORS') tool. The following outcomes were collected: identification rate, clear resection margins, specimen volume, operative time, re-operation rate, adverse events, and complications. RESULTS: In total, 2061 articles were screened for eligibility, resulting in 11 studies, with 366 patients included: two RCTs, three non-randomized comparative studies, four single-arm studies, and two case reports. All studies achieved a 100 per cent tumour identification rate with indocyanine green fluorescence, except for one study, with an identification rate of 87 per cent (13/15). Clear resection margins were found in 88-100 per cent of all patients. Reoperation rates ranged from 0.0 to 5.4 per cent and no complications or adverse events related to indocyanine green occurred. CONCLUSION: Indocyanine green fluorescence has substantial theoretical advantages compared with current routine localization methods. Although a limited number of studies were available, the current literature suggests that indocyanine green fluorescence is a useful, accurate, and safe technique for the intraoperative localization of non-palpable breast tumours, with equivalent efficacy compared with other localization techniques, potentially reducing tumour-positive margins.

Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI≥25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI≥30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age<40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR.

Most patients reported positively or neutrally of having served as controls in the trials within cohorts design.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' experience of having served as controls without a notification at the time of randomization in the context of the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design. METHODS: Patients were asked for their opinion on having served as controls in TwiCs, before and after having been provided the trial results. Patients had provided broad consent to randomization at cohort entry and had served as controls in one of two TwiCs (an exercise program after breast cancer treatment or radiotherapy dose-escalation for rectal cancer). RESULTS: Two to 6 years after cohort entry, 15% (n = 16) of all patients remembered having provided broad consent to randomization. Before disclosure of trial results, 47% (n = 52) of patients thought positively, 45% (n = 50) neutrally, and 2% (n = 2) negatively of having served as controls in one of the two trials. Seventeen percent (n = 18) of patients were positive, 65% (n = 71) neutral, and 11% (n = 12) negative about not having been notified when serving as controls. The survey results were comparable after disclosure of trial results. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the TwiCs design with the staged-informed consent procedure. Keeping patients engaged and aware of the consents provided might further improve patients' experience of serving as controls in TwiCs.