Exploring locoregional treatment reporting in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment studies: A systematic review.

Accurate information about locoregional treatments in breast cancer neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) trials is vital to support surgical decision-making and allow meaningful interpretation of long-term oncological outcomes. This systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42023470891) aimed to describe the current practice of outcome reporting in NST studies. A systematic search identified primary research studies published 01/01/2018-08/09/2023 reporting outcomes in patients receiving NST for breast cancer followed by locoregional treatment. Included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) with >250 participants reporting at least one locoregional treatment outcome. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorised using content analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise results. Of the 3111 abstracts screened, 137 studies (22 RCTs and 115 NRS) reporting at least one locoregional outcome in 575,531 patients were included. The 137 studies reported a total of 510 surgical outcomes with a median of 3 (range 1-12) per study. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Type of breast (n = 129, 94.2 %) and axillary (n = 86, 62.8 %) surgery were reported most frequently. Only 34 % (n = 47) studies reported how treatment response was assessed and if/how this informed surgical decision-making. Only a fifth (n = 28) reported outcomes relating to surgical de-escalation. Only 72 studies (52.6 %) reported any radiation therapy (RT)-related outcome, most frequently whether RT had been received (n = 63/72, 87.5 %). Current reporting of locoregional treatment outcomes in NST studies is poor, inconsistent and urgently needs to be improved. A core outcome set and reporting guidelines may improve the quality and value of future research.

Development of a core data set for describing, measuring and reporting the learning curve in studies of novel invasive procedures: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures remains poorly regulated and standardised. Although the learning curve associated with invasive procedures is a critical part of innovation, it is currently inconsistently defined, measured and reported. This study aims to develop a core data set that can be applied in all studies describing or measuring the learning curve in novel invasive procedures. METHODS: A core data set will be developed using methods adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The study will involve three phases: (1) Identification of a comprehensive list of data items through (a) an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews on the learning curve in surgery and (b) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. (2) Key stakeholders (eg, clinical innovators, clinicians, patients, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and governance representatives) will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each data item, generating a shortened list. (3) Consensus meeting(s) with stakeholders to discuss and agree on the final core data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (ref: 111362). Participants will complete written informed consent to participate. Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, patient engagement events, use of social media platforms, workshops and other events.

Understanding decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to a mastectomy in early breast cancer: UK ANTHEM qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery may allow women with early breast cancer to avoid a mastectomy, but many women undergo more extensive surgery, even when breast-conserving options are offered. The aim of the ANTHEM qualitative study was to explore factors influencing women's surgical decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who had received either oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction to explore their rationale for procedure choice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18238549. RESULTS: A total of 27 women from 12 centres were interviewed. Out of these, 12 had chosen oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and 15 had chosen a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Overwhelmingly, women's decisions were guided by their surgical teams. Decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was influenced by three key inter-related factors: perceptions of oncological safety; the importance of maintaining/restoring femininity and body image; and practical issues. Oncological safety was paramount. Women who reported feeling reassured that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was oncologically safe were happy to choose this option. Those who were not reassured were more likely to opt for a mastectomy, as a perceived 'safer' option. Most women wished to maintain/restore femininity, with the offer of immediate breast reconstruction essential to make a mastectomy an acceptable option. Practical issues such as the perceived magnitude of the surgery were a lesser concern. CONCLUSION: Decision-making is complex and heavily influenced by the surgical team. High-quality, accurate information about surgical options, including appropriate reassurance about the short- and long-term oncological safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery is vital if women are to make fully informed decisions.

Identifying research priorities for improving information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a UK patient-centred priority setting project.

PURPOSE: To use robust consensus methods with individuals with lived breast cancer experience to agree the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery in the UK. METHODS: Research uncertainties related to information and support for breast cancer surgery submitted by patients and carers were analysed thematically to generate summary questions for inclusion in an online Delphi survey. Individuals with lived breast cancer experience completed two Delphi rounds including feedback in which they selected their top 10 research priorities from the list provided. The most highly ranked priorities from the survey were discussed at an in-person prioritisation workshop at which the final top 10 was agreed. RESULTS: The 543 uncertainties submitted by 156 patients/carers were categorised into 63 summary questions for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Of the 237 individuals completing Round 1, 190 (80.2%) participated in Round 2. The top 25 survey questions were carried forward for discussion at the in-person prioritisation workshop at which 17 participants from across the UK agreed the final top 10 research priorities. Key themes included ensuring patients were fully informed about all treatment options and given balanced, tailored information to support informed decision-making and empower their recovery. Equity of access to treatments including contralateral mastectomy for symmetry was also considered a research priority. CONCLUSION: This process has identified the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Work is now needed to develop studies to address these important questions.

Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis. RESULTS: From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Understanding Patient Experiences to Inform Future Studies to Optimize Personalization of Treatment for Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is multimodal, but not all patients benefit from each treatment, and many experience morbidities significantly impacting quality of life. There is increasing interest in tailoring breast cancer treatments to optimize oncological outcomes and reduce treatment burden, but it is vital that future trials focus on treatments that most impact patients. This study was designed to explore patient experiences of treatment to inform future research. METHODS: An online survey was co-developed with patient advocates to explore respondents' experiences of breast cancer treatment. Questions included simple demographics, treatments received, and views regarding omitting treatments if that is deemed safe. The survey was circulated via social media and patient advocacy groups. Responses were summarized by using simple statistics; free text was analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 235 participants completing the survey, 194 (82.6%) would choose to omit a specific treatment if safe to do so. The most commonly selected treatments were chemotherapy (n = 69, 35.6%) and endocrine therapy (n = 61, 31.4%) mainly due to side effects. Fewer respondents would choose to omit surgery (n = 40, 20.6%) or radiotherapy (n = 20, 10.3%). Several women commented that survival was their "absolute priority" and that high-quality evidence to support the safety of reducing treatment would be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer are individuals who may wish to optimize different components of their treatment. A portfolio of studies co-designed with patients is needed to establish an evidence base for greater treatment personalization with studies focused on reducing avoidable chemotherapy and endocrine therapy a priority.

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.