Preoperative three-dimensional simulation of the breast appearance after wide local excision or level one oncoplastic techniques for breast-conserving treatment does not set unrealistic expectations for aesthetic outcome: One-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Simulation of aesthetic outcomes of wide local excision and level one oncoplastic breast conserving treatment (BCT) using 3-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) prepares women for their aesthetic outcome. It remains unknown whether women's memory of this information at the one-year follow-up matches their perception of reality or affects the quality of life. METHODS: With ethical approval, a prospective 3-arm RCT was conducted and it included 3D-simulation, viewing post-operative 2D photographs of other women and standard care. At one-year post-surgery, the participants completed a visual analogue scale (VAS) for the question "How well do you think the information about how your breasts are likely to look after surgery reflects how they actually look today?" and the BCT BREAST-Q module. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine between-group differences at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 117 women completed the primary endpoint of being informed about the aesthetic outcome via verbal description, photographs or simulation. Seventy-eight (74%) of the 106 women who remained eligible attended the one-year follow-up. The standardised preoperative 3D-SI simulation did not affect the patient's perception of the aesthetic outcome compared to standard care or viewing 2D photographs as measured using the VAS (p = 0.40) or BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with information (p = 0.76), satisfaction with breasts (p = 0.70), and psychosocial wellbeing domains (p = 0.81). DISCUSSION: Viewing their own 3D-SI standardised simulation did not significantly affect how the participants perceived their aesthetic outcome. In addition, it did not alter the patient-reported satisfaction. These results demonstrated that simulation for wide local excision or level one oncoplastic surgery does not set unrealistic expectations of the aesthetic outcome when used in a preoperative setting. SYNOPSIS: The use of a non-bespoke three-dimensional simulation of the aesthetic outcome for breast conserving treatment in the preoperative setting does not over-inflate expectations compared to standard care.

Patient and clinician satisfaction and clinical outcomes of Magseed compared with wire-guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions.

BACKGROUND: Guide-wire localisation remains the most commonly used technique for localisation of impalpable breast lesions in the UK. One alternative is magnetic seed localisation. We aimed to investigate patient and clinician satisfaction in two consecutive cohorts, describe re-excision and positive margin rates, and explore reasons for positive margins and the implications for localisation techniques. METHODS: A single-institution prospective service evaluation of two cohorts of consecutive cases of wire and then Magseed localisation was carried out. Data were collected on patient and clinician satisfaction, clinico-pathological findings, and causes of involved margins. T tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared test for satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: 168 consecutive cases used wire-guided localisation (WGL) and 128 subsequent cases used Magseeds. Patients reported less anxiety between localisation and surgery in the Magseed group, and clinicians reported greater ease of use of Magseeds. There were no differences in lesion size, surgical complexity, or re-excision rate between the groups. In a subset of patients receiving standard wide local excision (i.e., excluding mammoplasties), the impact on margin involvement was investigated. There was no significant difference in radiological under-sizing or accuracy of localisation. However, specimen weight and eccentricity of the lesion were statistically significantly lower in the Magseed group. Despite this, re-excision rates were not significantly different (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large study of satisfaction with localisation and showed clinician preference for Magseed and a reduction in patient anxiety. It also demonstrated similar positive margin rates despite smaller specimen weights in the Magseed group. Magnetic seed localisation offers an acceptable clinical alternative to guide wire localisation. The impact on local service provision should also be considered.