Outcomes of Different Quality of Life Assessment Modalities After Breast Cancer Therapy: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Improvement in clinical understanding of the priorities of patients with breast cancer (BC) regarding postoperative aesthetic outcomes (AOs) is needed. Objective: To assess expert panel and computerized evaluation modalities against patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the gold standard of AO assessment, in patients after surgical management of BC. Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were interrogated from inception through August 5, 2022. Search terms included breast conserving AND aesthetic outcome AND breast cancer. Ten observational studies were eligible for inclusion, with the earliest date of database collection on December 15, 2022. Study Selection: Studies with at least 1 pairwise comparison (PROM vs expert panel or PROM vs computerized evaluation with Breast Cancer Conservation Treatment cosmetic results [BCCT.core] software) were considered eligible if they included patients who received BC treatment with curative intent. Studies reporting solely on risk reduction or benign surgical procedures were excluded to ensure transitivity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted study data with an independent cross-check from a third reviewer. The quality of included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the level of evidence quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. Confidence in network meta-analysis results was analyzed with the Confidence in Network Meta-analysis semiautomated tool. Effect size was reported using random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and cumulative ratios of ORs with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this network meta-analysis was modality (expert panel or computer software) discordance from PROMs. Four-point Likert responses across PROMs, expert panel assessment, and BCCT.core evaluation of AOs were assessed. Results: A total of 10 observational studies including 3083 patients (median [IQR] age, 59 [50-60] years; median [range] follow-up, 39.0 [22.5-80.5] months) with reported AOs were assessed and homogenized in 4 distinct Likert response groups (excellent, very good, satisfactory, and bad). Overall network incoherence was low (χ22 = 0.35; P = .83). Overall, panel and software modalities graded AO outcomes worse than PROMs. Specifically, for excellent vs all other responses, the panel to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 86%) and the BCCT.core to PROM ratio of ORs was 0.28 (95% CrI, 0.13-0.59; I2 = 95%), while the BCCT.core to panel ratio of ORs was 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.88; I2 = 88%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients scored AOs higher than both expert panels and computer software. Standardization and supplementation of expert panel and software AO tools with racially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive PROMs is needed to improve clinical evaluation of the journey of patients with BC and to prioritize components of therapeutic outcomes.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum for European Breast Surgeons.

The Breast Surgery theoretical and practical knowledge curriculum comprehensively describes the knowledge and skills expected of a fully trained breast surgeon practicing in the European Union and European Economic Area (EEA). It forms part of a range of factors that contribute to the delivery of high quality cancer care. It has been developed by a panel of experts from across Europe and has been validated by professional breast surgery societies in Europe. The curriculum maps closely to the syllabus of the Union of European Medical Specialists (UEMS) Breast Surgery Exam, the UK FRCS (breast specialist interest) curriculum and other professional standards across Europe and globally (USA Society of Surgical Oncology, SSO). It is envisioned that this will serve as the basis for breast surgery training, examination and accreditation across Europe to harmonise and raise standards as breast surgery develops as a separate discipline from its parent specialties (general surgery, gynaecology, surgical oncology and plastic surgery). The curriculum is not static but will be revised and updated by the curriculum development group of the European Breast Surgical Oncology Certification group (BRESO) every 2 years.

New technologies for the assessment of breast surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although interest in objective and quantitative breast surgical outcome assessment is rapidly increasing, published reports have yet to make a real impact on everyday clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The authors offer a preliminary report on an innovative methodology customized for breast shape evaluation that, in our opinion, could overcome most of the technical and conceptual limitations of previous studies. METHODS: Three-dimensional/four-dimensional breast scanning was performed using a breast-dedicated prototype laser scanner made up of a handheld device, including a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera coupled to a spot laser source. Two additional motion analyzer cameras were used for handheld device tracking and the acquisition of patient motion. RESULTS: Seven female volunteers, including both subjects who had undergone cosmetic or reconstructive breast surgery and those with no such history, underwent a dynamic breast shape survey. Curvature mapping on three-dimensional mesh warranted precise measurements of local geometric properties of the breast surface. Elaboration and representation of breast dynamic behavior during common motor tasks (eg, walking, running, sitting, and lying) was also possible. CONCLUSIONS: The scanning methodology reported here reliably describes the breast surface not only in a static position, but also at specific postures or during motion of the body. It also opens the door for quantitative static and dynamic assessment of surgical outcomes, the intraoperative assessment of breast shape, and other applications. Limitations include the relatively long amount of time required for each scan and the need for technical and clinical validation, particularly with respect to four-dimensional assessment.