A Randomised Clinical Feasibility Trial of a Breast Immobilisation Device: The SuPPORT 4 All Bra.

AIMS: Despite the breast being a mobile organ, there is currently no standard suitable immobilisation device to optimise radiotherapy for women with larger breasts treated after a wide local excision. The SuPPORT 4 All (S4A) bra was co-designed with patients and radiotherapy professionals. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of using the S4A bra in the existing breast cancer radiotherapy pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised feasibility trial was conducted in a single institution; the primary feasibility endpoint was the recruitment of 50 participants. Efficacy endpoints were also tested, including assessment of skin reactions, dose to organs at risk and patient comfort. Fifty women were randomised to receive either standard radiotherapy with no immobilisation (control) or radiotherapy with the S4A bra (intervention). A separate planning study was undertaken on the cases randomised to receive the S4A bra. Participants in the intervention arm (S4A bra) underwent two planning computed tomography scans, one with the bra on and one without the bra; allowing direct comparison of organs at risk data for S4A bra versus no bra. RESULTS: All women who started radiotherapy wearing the S4A bra completed treatment with the bra; patient comfort did not change across the 3 weeks of treatment. Positional accuracy using the bra was comparable with existing published accuracy for methods without immobilisation. The mean ipsilateral lung doses showed some improvement when positioning with the S4A bra was compared with the no bra set-up (3.72 Gy versus 4.85 Gy for right-sided cases, 3.23 Gy versus 3.62 Gy for left-sided cases). CONCLUSIONS: The S4A bra is feasible to use in the radiotherapy pathway with good patient adherence. The S4A bra has potential to reduce dose to organs at risk (specifically ipsilateral lung dose) while maintaining good breast tissue coverage, and improved patient dignity, warranting further investigation on a larger scale.

Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions.

OBJECTIVE: To study the role of science related and other arguments in the development of workplace smoking regulations. DESIGN: Case study, content analysis SUBJECTS: Written commentaries and hearing transcripts on proposed indoor air regulations in Maryland and Washington. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We coded each written commentary and hearing testimony for position toward the regulation, affiliation of the person submitting it, criteria used to evaluate science and scientific, ideological, economic, political, engineering and procedural arguments. RESULTS: In both states, opposition to the regulations came primarily from the tobacco industry, small businesses, and business organisations and appeared to be coordinated. There was little coordination of public health support for the regulations. Arguments about science were used more often by those opposed to the regulations than by those in favour. Supporters emphasised the quantity of the evidence, while opponents criticised its reliability, validity, and quality. Arguments not related to science (61% of total arguments; 459/751), were more common than scientific arguments (39% of total arguments; 292/751). Economic and ideological arguments were used to a similar extent by regulation supporters and opponents. CONCLUSIONS: Advocates can support health related regulations by submitting commentary emphasising the sound research base for regulation and countering criticisms of research. National coordination of these efforts could avoid duplication of effort and make more efficient use of limited public health resources.