The presentation, management and outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (invasion ≤1 mm in size)-results from the UK Sloane Project.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis, management and prognosis of microinvasive breast carcinoma remain controversial. METHODS: We analysed the outcomes of patients with DCIS with and without microinvasion diagnosed between 2003 and 2012 within the Sloane project. RESULTS: Microinvasion was recorded in 521 of 11,285 patients (4.6%), with considerable variation in reported incidence among screening units (0-25%). Microinvasion was associated with high-grade DCIS, larger DCIS size, comedo necrosis and solid, cribriform architecture (all P < 0.001). Microinvasion was more frequent in patients who underwent mastectomy compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (6.9% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), and in those undergoing axillary nodal surgery (60.4% vs 30.3%, P < 0.001) including the subset undergoing BCS (43.4% vs 8.5%, P < 0.001). Nodal metastasis rate was low and not statistically significant difference from the DCIS only group (P = 0.68). Following median follow-up of 110 months, 3% of patients had recurrent ipsilateral high-grade DCIS, and 4.2% developed invasive carcinoma. The subsequent ipsilateral invasion was of Grade 3 in 71.4% of patients with microinvasion vs 30.4% in DCIS without microinvasion (P = 0.02). Distant metastasis and breast cancer mortality were higher with microinvasion compared with DCIS only (1.2% vs 0.3%, P = 0.01 and 2.1% vs 0.8%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The higher breast cancer mortality with microinvasion indicates a more aggressive disease.

Wire- and magnetic-seed-guided localization of impalpable breast lesions: iBRA-NET localisation study.

BACKGROUND: Wire localization is historically the most common method for guiding excision of non-palpable breast lesions, but there are limitations to the technique. Newer technologies such as magnetic seeds may allow some of these challenges to be overcome. The aim was to compare safety and effectiveness of wire and magnetic seed localization techniques. METHODS: Women undergoing standard wire or magnetic seed localization for non-palpable lesions between August 2018 and August 2020 were recruited prospectively to this IDEAL stage 2a/2b platform cohort study. The primary outcome was effectiveness defined as accurate localization and removal of the index lesion. Secondary endpoints included safety, specimen weight and reoperation rate for positive margins. RESULTS: Data were accrued from 2300 patients in 35 units; 2116 having unifocal, unilateral breast lesion localization. Identification of the index lesion in magnetic-seed-guided (946 patients) and wire-guided excisions (1170 patients) was 99.8 versus 99.1 per cent (P = 0.048). There was no difference in overall complication rate. For a subset of patients having a single lumpectomy only for lesions less than 50 mm (1746 patients), there was no difference in median closest margin (2 mm versus 2 mm, P = 0.342), re-excision rate (12 versus 13 per cent, P = 0.574) and specimen weight in relation to lesion size (0.15 g/mm2versus 0.138 g/mm2, P = 0.453). CONCLUSION: Magnetic seed localization demonstrated similar safety and effectiveness to those of wire localization. This study has established a robust platform for the comparative evaluation of new localization devices.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection). INTERPRETATION: Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Is Using Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Reconstructive and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Helpful in Reducing Skin Necrosis?

Introduction Skin necrosis is a major concern of morbidity in patients undergoing reconstructive and oncoplastic breast surgery (ROBS) as it may lead to a poor aesthetic outcome, necessitate further surgery, and delay adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy if required postoperatively. Some studies have reported that closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) immediately after surgery can reduce the incidence of wound complications. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of ciNPT on skin necrosis rate after ROBS. Methods Our study included 82 patients in a single center who underwent 121 ROBS procedures. We used conventional dressing in 42 patients (62 procedures, group A), while we used ciNPT in 40 patients (59 procedures, group B). When ciNPT dressing was introduced in our breast unit, 40 patients with 59 ROBS procedures who had ciNPT dressing were studied prospectively. The risk factors recorded were age, body mass index (BMI), history of previous radiotherapy, history of smoking, type of incision, type of operation, breast tissue specimen weight, use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and implant size. Skin necrosis was classified as "minor" if it was managed conservatively with regular dressings and "major" if surgical debridement in theater and/or exchange or implant removal was necessary. Results The incidence of overall skin necrosis in the conventional dressing group was 17.7% (11/62), while in the ciNPT group, it was higher at 25.4% (15/59), although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.51). ciNPT also did not show a statistically significant difference from the conventional dressing in the rate of minor necrosis (18.6% versus 11.2%, respectively; p = 0.44) and major necrosis (6.7% versus 6.4%, respectively; p = 1.00) Conclusion Our data has shown no superiority of ciNPT in reducing skin necrosis rate in a patient undergoing reconstructive and oncoplastic breast surgery, contrary to many other published reports. However, it may have reduced rates of other wound complications such as wound dehiscence, wound infection, and hypertrophic scar formation, which were not studied in our cohort. Further studies are needed to confirm its benefits, especially in high-risk patients.

Unresected screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: Outcomes of 311 women in the Forget-Me-Not 2 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is poorly understood. The aim of this cohort study was to determine the outcomes of women who had no surgery for screen-detected DCIS in the 6 months following diagnosis. METHODS: English breast screening databases were retrospectively searched for women diagnosed with DCIS without invasive cancer at screening and who had no record of surgery within 6 months of diagnosis. These were cross-referenced with cancer registry data. Details of the potentially eligible women were sent to the relevant breast screening units for verification and for completion of data forms detailing clinical, radiological and pathological findings, non-surgical treatment and subsequent clinical course. RESULTS: Data for 311 eligible women (median age 62 years) were available. 60 women developed invasive cancer, 56 ipsilateral and 4 contralateral. Ipsilateral invasion risk increased approximately linearly with time for at least 10 years. The 10-year cumulative risk of ipsilateral invasion was 9% (95% CI 4-21%), 39% (24-58%) and 36% (24-50%) for low, intermediate and high grade DCIS respectively and was higher in younger women, in those with larger DCIS lesions and in those with microinvasion. Most invasive cancers that developed were grade 2 or 3. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that active surveillance may be a reasonable alternative to surgery in patients with low grade DCIS but that women with intermediate or high grade disease should continue to be offered surgery. This highlights the importance of reproducible grading of DCIS to ensure patients receive appropriate treatment.

Results of shared learning of a new magnetic seed localisation device - A UK iBRA-NET breast cancer localisation study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared learning is imperative in the assessment and safe implementation of new healthcare interventions. Magnetic seeds (Magseed®) potentially offer logistical benefit over wire localisation for non-palpable breast lesions but few data exist on outcomes comparing these techniques. A national registration study (iBRA-NET) was conducted to collate device outcomes. In order to share learning, thematic analysis was conducted to ascertain early clinical experiences of Magseed® and wire guided localisation and explore how learning events may be applied to improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A qualitative study of 27 oncoplastic surgeons, radiologists and physicians was conducted in January 2020 to ascertain the feasibility and challenges associated with Magseed® versus wire breast localisation surgery. Four focus groups were asked to discuss experiences, concerns and shared learning outcomes which were tabulated and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified comparing Magseed® and wire localisation of breast lesions relating to preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative learning outcomes. Percutaneous Magseed® detection, instrument interference and potential seed or wire dislodgement were the most common issues identified. Clinician experience suggested Magseed® index lesion identification was non-inferior to wire placement and improved the patient pathway in terms of scheduling and multi-site insertion. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective shared learning suggested Magseed® offered additional non-clinical benefits over wire localisation, improving the efficiency of the patient pathway. Recommendations for improving breast localisation technique, appropriate patient selection and clinical practice through shared learning are discussed that may aid other surgeons in the adoption of this relatively new technique.

Cohort profile of the Sloane Project: methodology for a prospective UK cohort study of >15 000 women with screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia.

PURPOSE: The introduction of breast screening in the UK led to an increase in the detection of non-invasive breast neoplasia, predominantly ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a non-obligatory precursor of invasive breast cancer. The Sloane Project, a UK prospective cohort study of screen-detected non-invasive breast neoplasia, commenced in 2003 to evaluate the radiological assessment, surgical management, pathology, adjuvant therapy and outcomes for non-invasive breast neoplasia. Long-term follow-up and accurate data collection are essential to examine the clinical impact. Here, we describe the establishment, development and analytical processes for this large UK cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with non-invasive breast neoplasia via the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) from 01 April 2003 are eligible, with a minimum age of 46 years. Diagnostic, therapeutic and follow-up data collected via proformas, complement date and cause of death from national data sources. Accrual for patients with DCIS ceased in 2012 but is ongoing for patients with epithelial atypia/in situ neoplasia, while follow-up for all continues long term. FINDINGS TO DATE: To date, patients within the Sloane cohort comprise one-third of those diagnosed with DCIS within the NHSBSP and are representative of UK practice. DCIS has a variable outcome and confirms the need for longer-term follow-up for screen-detected DCIS. However, the radiology and pathology features of DCIS can be used to inform patient management. We demonstrate validation of follow-up information collected from national datasets against traditional, manual methods. FUTURE PLANS: Conclusions derived from the Sloane Project are generalisable to women in the UK with screen-detected DCIS. The follow-up methodology may be extended to other UK cohort studies and routine clinical follow-up. Data from English patients entered into the Sloane Project are available on request to researchers under data sharing agreement. Annual follow-up data collection will continue for a minimum of 20 years.

A Novel Mixed-Methods Platform Study Protocol for Investigating New Surgical Devices, with Embedded Shared Learning: Ibra-net Breast Lesion Localisation Study.

INTRODUCTION: New medical devices must have adequate research, such that outcomes are known, enabling patients to be consented with knowledge of the safety and efficacy of the device to be implanted. Device trials are challenging due to the learning curve and iterative assessment of best practice. This study is designed to pilot a national collaborative approach to medical device introduction by breast surgeons in the UK, using breast localisation devices as an exemplar. The aim is to develop an effective and transferable surgical device platform protocol design, with embedded shared learning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The iBRA-net localisation study is a UK based prospective, multi-centre platform study, comparing the safety and efficacy of novel localisation devices with wire-guided breast lesion localisation for wide local excision, using Magseed® as the pilot intervention group. Centres performing breast lesion localisation for wide local excision or excision biopsy will be eligible to participate if using one of the included devices. Further intervention arms will be added as new devices are CE marked. Outcomes will be collected via an online database. The primary outcome measure will be identification of the index lesion. Participating surgeons will be asked to record shared learning events via online questionnaires and focus group interviews to inform future study arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will aim to collect data on 950 procedures for each intervention (Magseed® and wire localisation) from UK breast centres over an 18-month period. Shared learning will be prospectively evaluated via thematic analysis to refine breast localisation technique and to promote early identification of potential pitfalls and problems. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer reviewed journals. REGISTRATION: This is a UK national audit registered with Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. HIGHLIGHTS: This protocol outlines a novel methodology for a collaborative national platform study to collate safety and efficacy data on new medical devices. Improved registration and audit of new medical devices is a major theme of the Cumberlege report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review.We outline a protocol for a UK based multi-centre prospective audit to investigate the safety and efficacy of new surgical devices for breast lesion localisation. The study will run as a platform study using wire localisation as a control group and Magseed® as the first intervention arm.The protocol is designed for additional bolt-on intervention arms for other localisation devices, such as Hologic Localizer™ and Savi Scout®, when they become available to the European market. This will enable comparison of these devices to datasets already collected on wire and Magseed® localisation.The study includes a novel shared learning methodology using iterative online database reporting and surgical interviews to centrally distribute information on learning events, critical governance issues and recommended protocols for future use.

Outcome of complete acellular dermal matrix wrap with polyurethane implant in immediate prepectoral breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Polyurethane implants have been used on and off in breast reconstruction since 1991 while prepectoral breast reconstruction has gained popularity in recent times. In this study, we present our outcomes from the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) complete wrap with polyurethane implants in prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively maintained database from 41 patients receiving complete ADM wrap with prepectoral polyurethane implants over a 3-year period. Selection criteria were adapted from a previous study (4135 Trust Clinical Audit Database) evaluating prepectoral reconstruction with Braxon matrices. Patient demographics, operative data, surgical complications, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 52 implant reconstructions were performed in 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 14.3 months (range, 6-36 months). The overall reported complication rates including early (less than 6 weeks) and late complications. Early complications included two patients (4.9%) with wound dehiscence. One of which had an implant loss that was salvageable. Another patient (2%) developed red-breast syndrome and two women (4.9%) developed with seroma treated conservatively. Late complications included one patient (2%) with grade II capsular contraction, 12 patients with grade I-II rippling and two patients (4.9%) with grade III rippling. CONCLUSIONS: We present our experience of prepectoral polyurethane implant using complete ADM wrap. This is one of the few papers to report on the outcome of the prepectoral use of polyurethane in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. Our early observational series show satisfactory outcome and long-term results are warranted by a large multicenter study.

Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey.

INTRODUCTION: The 2008 National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit demonstrated marked variation in the practice and outcomes of breast reconstruction in the UK. To standardise practice and improve outcomes for patients, the British professional associations developed best-practice guidelines with specific guidance for newer mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. We explored the degree of uptake of best-practice guidelines within units performing implant-based reconstruction (IBBR) as the first phase of the implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) study. METHODS: A questionnaire developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Simple summary statistics were calculated for each survey item to assess compliance with current best-practice guidelines. RESULTS: 81 units from 79 NHS Trusts completed the questionnaire. Marked variation was observed in adherence to guidelines, especially those relating to clinical governance and infection prevention strategies. Less than half (n = 28, 47%) of units obtained local clinical governance board approval prior to offering new mesh-based techniques and prospective audit of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of surgery was infrequent. Most units screened for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus prior to surgery but fewer than 1 in 3 screened for methicillin-sensitive strains. Laminar-flow theatres (recommended for IBBR) were not widely-available with less than 1 in 5 units having regular access. Peri-operative antibiotics were widely-used, but the type and duration were highly-variable. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA national practice questionnaire has demonstrated variation in reported practice and adherence to IBBR guidelines. High-quality evidence is urgently required to inform best practice.

Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK. METHODS: A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined. RESULTS: 81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50-80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0-3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0-3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study: protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing new techniques of implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK. The introduction of techniques to augment the subpectoral pocket has revolutionised the procedure, but there is a lack of high-quality outcome data to describe the safety or effectiveness of these techniques. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way of comparing treatments, but surgical RCTs are challenging. The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study aims to determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic RCT to examine the effectiveness of approaches to IBBR. METHODS/DESIGN: The iBRA study is a trainee-led research collaborative project with four phases:Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practicePhase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients undergoing IBBR to evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcomesPhase 3- an IBBR-RCT acceptability survey and qualitative work to explore patients' and surgeons' views of proposed trial designs and candidate outcomes.Phase 4 - phases 1 to 3 will inform the design and conduct of the future RCT All centres offering IBBR will be encouraged to participate by the breast and plastic surgical professional associations (Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons). Data collected will inform the feasibility of undertaking an RCT by defining current practice and exploring issues surrounding recruitment, selection of comparator arms, choice of primary outcome, sample size, selection criteria, trial conduct, methods of data collection and feasibility of using the trainee collaborative model to recruit patients and collect data. DISCUSSION: The preliminary work undertaken within the iBRA study will determine the feasibility, design and conduct of a definitive RCT in IBBR. It will work with the trainee collaborative to build capacity by creating an infrastructure of research-active breast and plastic surgeons which will facilitate future high-quality research that will ultimately improve outcomes for all women seeking reconstructive surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN37664281.

Phylloides tumours of the breast: best practice for follow-up.

Phylloides tumours are rare fibroepithelial breast tumours accounting for 1% of breast cancers. No UK guidance exists on the assessment, treatment and follow-up of these patients. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical core biopsy compared to the gold standard excision biopsy and determine the current follow-up practice and recurrence rate of phylloides tumours across two UK hospital trusts. Multicentre retrospective analysis of all cases of phylloides tumours over 6 years at Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust (WANHST) and Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust (GHNHST). 94 Patients included. Mean age 48 years. Mean clinical and radiological size of lesions 31.7 and 35.4 mm, respectively, preoperative core biopsy sensitivity was 87% for WANHST and 74% for GHNHST with a positive predictive value of 90 and 100%, respectively. 29 Different follow-up regimes were observed from the practice of the 10 surgeons observed following diagnosis and resection of tumours. The follow-up length ranged from discharge following one post-operative clinic attendance to 5-year clinical and/or radiological follow-up. 4 Benign and 2 malignant recurrent phylloides tumours were seen. All benign recurrences were local and found independently of follow-up. The earliest benign phylloides recurrence was at 6 years and the latest at 10 years. There is no standard follow-up of benign or malignant phylloides tumours. This study suggests that in the benign group, the risk of recurrence is small. We advocate no routine follow-up of benign phylloides tumours.

Poly implant breast implants (PIP) and the rupture risk in asymptomatic patients: a warning for greater clinician suspicion in assessment and counselling.

Poly implant prostheses (PIP) implants have raised concern due to the increased reporting of ruptures prompting a UK review in 2012 recommending that symptomatic patients only undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and explantation as necessary. Literature suggests two of three implant ruptures are asymptomatic. In this case, a 45-year-old woman with bilateral breast implants for cosmesis presented due to publicity of PIP implants. She was asymptomatic with no clinical signs suggestive of rupture. Due to patient intention for explanation of rupture, an MRI scan was undertaken which showed extensive silicone between the chest wall and lung bilaterally. The lung multidisciplinary team did not recommend removal of the lung silicone infiltrate. The implants were removed confirming rupture. Symptoms and signs cannot be relied upon to diagnose implant ruptures. Where patient concern exists with expressed intent for explantation if proven rupture, MRI assessment is a reliable tool where clinical uncertainty over rupture is present.