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.

No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast pain constitute >20% of breast clinic attendees. AIM: To investigate breast cancer incidence in women presenting with breast pain and establish the health economics of referring women with breast pain to secondary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective cohort study of all consecutive women referred to a breast diagnostic clinic over 12 months. METHOD: Women were categorised by presentation into four distinct clinical groups and cancer incidence investigated. RESULTS: Of 10 830 women, 1972 (18%) were referred with breast pain, 6708 (62%) with lumps, 480 (4%) with nipple symptoms, 1670 (15%) with 'other' symptoms. Mammography, performed in 1112 women with breast pain, identified cancer in eight (0.7%). Of the 1972 women with breast pain, breast cancer incidence was 0.4% compared with ∼5% in each of the three other clinical groups. Using 'breast lump' as reference, the odds ratio (OR) of women referred with breast pain having breast cancer was 0.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.09, P<0.001). Compared with reassurance in primary care, referral was more costly (net cost £262) without additional health benefits (net quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] loss -0.012). The greatest impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was when QALY loss because of referral-associated anxiety was excluded. Primary care reassurance no longer dominated, but the ICER remained greater (£45 528/QALY) than typical UK National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSION: This study shows that referring women with breast pain to a breast diagnostic clinic is an inefficient use of limited resources. Alternative management pathways could improve capacity and reduce financial burden.

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.

Moving beyond the stage: how characteristics at diagnosis dictate treatment and treatment-related quality of life year losses for women with early stage invasive breast cancer.

Background:Although evaluations of breast cancer screening programs frequently estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses by stage, other breast cancer characteristics influence treatment and vary by mode of detection - i.e. whether the cancer is detected through screening (screen-detected), between screening rounds (interval-detected) or outside screening (community-detected). Here, we estimate the association between early-stage invasive breast cancer (ESIBC) characteristics and treatment-related QALY losses.Methods:Using clinicopathological and treatment information from 675 women managed for ESIBC, we estimated the average five-year treatment-related QALY loss by detection group. We then used regression analysis to estimate the extent to which known cancer characteristics and the detection mode, are associated with treatment and treatment-related QALY losses.Results:Community-detected cancers had the largest QALY loss (0.76 QALYs [95% CI 0.73;0.80]), followed by interval-detected cancers (0.75 QALYs [95% CI 0.68;0.82]) and screen-detected cancers (0.69 QALYs [95%CI 0.67;0.71]). Adverse prognostic factors more common in community-detected and interval-detected breast cancers (large tumours, lymph node involvement, high grade) were largely associated with QALY losses from mastectomies and chemotherapy. Receptor-positive subtypes, more common in screen-detected cancers, were associated with QALY losses related to endocrine therapy.Conclusions:The associations between ESIBC characteristics and treatment-related QALY losses should be considered when evaluating breast cancer screening and treatment strategies.

The financial impact of a breast cancer detected within and outside of screening: lessons from the Australian Lifepool cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the government and out-of-pocket community costs (out-of-hospital medical services and prescription medicines) associated with screen-detected and community-detected cancers (i.e. cancers detected outside of Australia's organised screening program [BreastScreen]). METHODS: We analyse administrative data on government-subsidised medical services and prescription medicines for 568 Victorian women diagnosed with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Using multivariable regression analysis, we estimate the government and out-of-pocket community costs incurred in the three years after diagnosis for screen-detected cancers and community-detected cancers. Additionally, we estimate the government costs associated with diagnosis within and outside of BreastScreen. RESULTS: Average government costs for breast cancer diagnosis were similar within and outside of BreastScreen [$808 (lower limit 676; upper limit 940) vs $837 (95%CI 671; 1,003) respectively]; however, women with community-detected cancers incurred an additional $254 (95%CI 175; 332) out-of-pocket. Controlling for differences in known cancer characteristics, compared to screen-detected cancers, community-detected breast cancers were associated with an additional $2,622 (95%CI 644; 4,776) in government expenditure in the three years following diagnosis. Adverse cancer characteristics that were more prevalent in community-detected cancers (high grade, lymph node involvement, HER2 positive receptor status) were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: Community-detected breast cancers were associated with increased government and out-of-pocket costs. Implications for public health: These costs should be considered when evaluating current and alternative breast cancer screening strategies.

Valuing preferences for treating screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic screening reduces breast cancer mortality but may lead to the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk breast cancers. Conservative management may reduce the potential harm of overtreatment, yet little is known about the impact upon quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To quantify women's preferences for managing low-risk screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), including the acceptability of active monitoring as an alternative treatment. METHODS: Utilities (cardinal measures of quality of life) were elicited from 172 women using visual analogue scales (VASs), standard gambles, and the Euro-Qol-5D-5L questionnaire for seven health states describing treatments for low-risk DCIS. Sociodemographics and breast cancer history were examined as predictors of utility. RESULTS: Both patients and non-patients valued active monitoring more favourably on average than conventional treatment. Utilities were lowest for DCIS treated with mastectomy (VAS: 0.454) or breast conserving surgery (BCS) with adjuvant radiotherapy (VAS: 0.575). The utility of active monitoring was comparable to BCS alone but was rated more favourably as progression risk was reduced from 40% to 10%. Disutility for active monitoring was likely driven by anxiety around progression, whereas conventional management impacted other dimensions of quality of life. The heterogeneity between individual preferences could not be explained by sociodemographic variables, suggesting that the factors influencing women's preferences are complex. CONCLUSIONS: Active monitoring of low-risk DCIS is likely to be an acceptable alternative for reducing the impact of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in terms of quality of life. Further research is required to determine subgroups more likely to opt for conservative management.

Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures.

Policy decisions regarding breast cancer screening and treatment programmes may be misplaced unless the decision process includes the appropriate utilities and disutilities of mammography screening and its sequelae. The objectives of this study were to critically review how economic evaluations have valued the health states associated with breast cancer screening, and appraise the primary evidence informing health state utility values (cardinal measures of quality of life). A systematic review was conducted up to September 2018 of studies that elicited or used utilities relevant to mammography screening. The methods used to elicit utilities and the quality of the reported values were tabulated and analysed narratively. 40 economic evaluations of breast cancer screening programmes and 10 primary studies measuring utilities for health states associated with mammography were reviewed in full. The economic evaluations made different assumptions about the measures used, duration applied and the sequalae included in each health state. 22 evaluations referenced utilities based on assumptions or used measures that were not methodologically appropriate. There was significant heterogeneity in the utilities generated by the 10 primary studies, including the methods and population used to derive them. No study asked women to explicitly consider the risk of overdiagnosis when valuing the health states described. Utilities informing breast screening policy are restricted in their ability to reflect the full benefits and harms. Evaluating the true cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening will remain problematic, unless the methodological challenges associated with valuing the disutilities of screening are adequately addressed.