Qualitative exploration of patients' experiences with Intrabeam TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) and External-Beam RadioTherapy Treatment (EBRT) for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To gather a deep qualitative understanding of the perceived benefits and impacts of External-Beam RadioTherapy (EBRT) and TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam to assess how the treatments affected patient/care partner experiences during their cancer treatment and beyond. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A patient-led working group was established to guide study design and to help validate findings. Patients with experience of receiving EBRT or TARGIT-IORT were purposively sampled by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. These patients had been offered both regimens as per their clinical features and eligibility. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 29 patients and care partners with lived experience of either EBRT (n=12, 5-day FAST-Forward regimen and n=3, 3-week regimen) or TARGIT-IORT (n=14). Thematic analysis was then carried out by two coders generating 11 themes related to EBRT or TARGIT-IORT. SETTING: Semistructured interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom during February and March 2023. RESULTS: A number of procedural grievances were noted among EBRT patients. EBRT was perceived as being disruptive to normal routines (work, home and travel) and caused discomfort from side effects. TARGIT-IORT was perceived by patients and care partners as the safer option and efficient with minimal if any disruptions to quality of life. The need for timely accessible information to reduce anxieties was noted in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study found that patients perceived EBRT as being greatly disruptive to their lives. In contrast, the one-off feature of TARGIT-IORT given while they are asleep during surgery gives them the feeling of stamping out the cancer without conscious awareness. These insights can help healthcare staff and policy-makers further justify the incorporation of the treatment favoured by these patient perceptions (TARGIT-IORT) more widely in routine practice. Further research is planned to explore TARGIT-IORT in more diverse populations and in the 35 countries where it is an established treatment option.

Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in High-risk Patients Undergoing Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery.

Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has emerged as an adjunct to reduce wound complication rates in many surgical domains. This study investigated the prophylactic use of PICO NPWT in high-risk patients undergoing oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery. Methods: This was a prospective multicenter national audit. The findings were compared against Association of Breast Surgery/British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (ABS/BAPRAS) Oncoplastic Guidelines for best practice. Results: Data from 267 patients were included from seven centers. All patients had at least one high-risk factor for postoperative wound complications, whereas 78 patients (29.2%) had more than one. Thirty-six patients (13.5%) developed postoperative wound complications. An estimated 16 (6%) developed skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence occurred in 13 patients (4.9%), and 15 patients (5.6%) developed postoperative wound infection. Eleven patients (4.1%) required further surgery due to wound complications. In total, 158 patients underwent mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction. Postoperative wound complication rate was comparable in this subgroup (n = 22; 13.9%). Implant loss rate was 3.8%, which was within the 5% target mentioned in the ABS/BAPRAS guidelines. The estimated total cost saving was US $105,600 (£84,613) and US $395.50 (£316.90) per patient. Wound infection rate (5.6%) was much lower than the 25% reported by both iBRA study and National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit. Conclusions: Our study suggests that prophylactic use of NPWT in oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery results in low rates of wound-related complications with associated healthcare cost benefits in patients with high-risk factors for wound-related complications. However, a prospective randomized control trial is required.