Capturing longer term surgical outcome measures as part of routine care of breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: The transition away from routine clinical follow up after breast cancer towards imaging surveillance and patient-initiated contact limits opportunities for patients and doctors to communicate about the long-term effects of treatment. The ABS oncoplastic guidelines (2021) recommend that post-operative 2D images and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are routinely collected but give no guidance as to how best to implement this. METHODS: From December 2019 until March 2024, women due for their year 3 or 5 surveillance mammogram at The Royal Marsden Sutton site were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire and attend medical photography. Panel assessment of photographs was undertaken. Results were presented to the oncoplastic MDT, including summary PROMs and illustrative case presentations. Free-text comments were shared with the relevant teams. Associations between demographic or clinic-pathological factors and uptake were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 1211 women invited, 246 patients (20.3 %) completed BREAST-Q questionnaires, 182 (15.0 %) attended for medical photography and 114 (9.4 %) completed both. Uptake was not associated with age, ethnicity or surgical factors but patients with higher BMI were less likely to respond to the questionnaire. Patients who had undergone complex oncoplastic procedures were more likely to respond than those who had simple procedures. Patient-reported outcome results were in line with the published literature. CONCLUSION: Reviewing images with their paired PROMs and discussing free-text feedback was instructive for the team. Work is needed to identify barriers to patient participation and improve uptake to be representative of the overall patient population. Quantifying appearance in photographs would help summarise aesthetic outcome data.

Clinical utility of axillary nodal markers in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation of axillary surgery for lymph node (LN) positive breast cancer is facilitated by marking involved nodes which, when removed with sentinel nodes constitute risk-adapted targeted axillary dissection (TAD). Whether after chemotherapy or for primary surgery, selected patients with biopsy-proven involvement of nodes may be eligible for axillary conservation. Likewise, impalpable recurrence or stage 4 patients with localised axillary disease may benefit. In these contexts, several devices are used to mark biopsied nodes to facilitate their accurate surgical removal. We report our experience using the paramagnetic MAGSEED (Endomag®, Cambridge, UK). METHODS: Local approval (BR2021_149) was obtained to interrogate a prospective database of all axillary markers. The primary endpoint was successful removal of the marked LN. RESULTS: Of 241 markers (in 221 patients) inserted between October 2018 and July 2022, all were retrieved. Of 74 patients who had Magseeds® inserted after completion of NACT (involved nodes initially marked using an UltraCor™Twirl™ marker), the Magseeds® were found outside the node in neighbouring axillary tissue in 18 (24.3%) patients. When Magseeds® were placed at commencement of NACT in 54 patients, in only 1 (1.8%) was the marker found outside the node - a statistically significantly lower rate (Chi2 10.7581 p = 0.001038). For 'primary TAD' patients and those localised for recurrent or stage IV disease, all 93 had the Magseed® found within the biopsied node. CONCLUSION: This series supports our axillary nodal marking technique as safe and reliable. For TAD following NACT, placement at the start of treatment led to a significantly higher localisation rate.

Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp study (PRADA): Aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction at one year.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal combination of radiotherapy and breast reconstruction has not yet been defined. Post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has deleterious effects on breast reconstruction, leading to caution amongst surgeons. Pre-operative radiotherapy (PRT) is a growing area of interest, is demonstrated to be safe, and spares autologous flaps from radiotherapy. This study evaluates the aesthetic outcome of PRT and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction within the Pre-operative Radiotherapy And Deep Inferior Epigastric artery Perforator (DIEP) flAp (PRADA) cohort. METHODS: PRADA was an observational cohort study designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PRT for women undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DIEP reconstruction. Panel evaluation of 3D surface images (3D-SIs) and patient-reported outcome measures (BREAST-Q) for a subset of women in the study were compared with those of a DIEP-PMRT cohort who had undergone DIEP reconstruction and PMRT. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 33 women from the PRADA study participated in this planned substudy. Twenty-eight women formed the DIEP-PMRT cohort (median follow-up 23 months). The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 'satisfaction with breasts' score at 12 months for the PRADA cohort was significantly better than the DIEP-PMRT cohort (77 [72-87] versus 64 [54-71], respectively), p=0.01). Median [IQR] panel evaluation (5-point scale) was also significantly better for the PRADA cohort than for the DIEP-PMRT cohort (4.3 [3.9-4.6] versus 3.6 [2.8-4] p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcome for the PRADA cohort was reported to be 'good' or 'excellent' in 93% of cases using a bespoke panel assessment with robust methodology. Patient satisfaction at one year is encouraging and superior to DIEP-PMRT at 23 months. Switching surgery-radiotherapy sequencing leads to similar breast aesthetic outcomes and warrants further large-scale, multi-centre evaluation in a randomised trial.

Does mainstream BRCA testing affect surgical decision-making in newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients?

BACKGROUND: Germline pathogenic variants mutations) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes cause an increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Mainstream cancer genetic testing (MCG) was introduced for breast cancer patients in our unit in 2013. Non-geneticist clinicians have been trained to offer genetic testing during initial treatment planning. We assessed the impact of timely test results on surgical decision-making. METHODS: Women who had undergone mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer between September 2013 and September 2018 were identified from a prospective database. Surgical data were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: 580 eligible women had mainstream genetic testing. For 474 this was their first breast cancer diagnosis. The median age was 46 years (interquartile range (IQR) 38-57). The indications were: age ≤45 years for 233 (49%); triple negative disease for 192 women (40.5%); bilateral breast cancer age <60 for 39 (8%) and other for 72 (14%) women. The median time for test initiation to result was 18 days (IQR 15-21). 302 (64% received results before surgery. 88% of those found to have a BRCA mutation before surgery opted for bilateral mastectomy (compared to 5% with BRCA wild type). An additional 106 patients had a new diagnosis on a background of previous treatment. Of these all with a pathogenic variant chose bilateral mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Timely BRCA gene testing influences surgeons' and patients' choice of surgery. It reassures women with a negative result and allows those with a positive result to take an active decision about the management of their future risk.

Isotope-Only Localization for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy - Medium-Term Oncological Outcomes.

AIMS: Isotope and blue dye dual localization in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) gives localization rates of over 98% and is the recommended technique. However blue dye risks a range of adverse reactions. Since 2010, for clinically node negative disease, we have only used blue dye if there is no clear isotope signal at surgery. METHODS: Electronic records of patients who underwent isotope-only SLN localization between July 2010 and April 2012 were examined. Data were collected on localization and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: 426 patients were included. Isotope-only localization rate was 97.4% (415/426). The median follow-up was 63.5 months (IQR: 60.7-70.9). Median age was 57 (IQR: 48-67). Median SLN yield was 2 (range: 1-5). Axillary recurrence rate was 1.4% with median time to recurrence of 39.3 months. In-breast recurrence, distant disease and contralateral breast cancer rates were 2.8%, 7%, and 1.9% respectively and 15 (3.5%) patients died of metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Isotope-only SLNB has a comparable localization rate to dual isotope/blue dye SLNB and can spare the risk of blue dye adverse reactions. The low axillary recurrence rate, maintained to more than 5 years, confirms that isotope-only SLNB is a feasible and safe alternative to dual blue dye/isotope localization.

Primary radiotherapy and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction for patients with breast cancer (PRADA): a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy before mastectomy and autologous free-flap breast reconstruction can avoid adverse radiation effects on healthy donor tissues and delays to adjuvant radiotherapy. However, evidence for this treatment sequence is sparse. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in patients with breast cancer requiring mastectomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, feasibility study at two National Health Service trusts in the UK. Eligible patients were women aged older than 18 years with a laboratory diagnosis of primary breast cancer requiring mastectomy and post-mastectomy radiotherapy, who were suitable for DIEP flap reconstruction. Preoperative radiotherapy started 3-4 weeks after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and was delivered to the breast, plus regional nodes as required, at 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks) or 42·72 Gy in 16 fractions (over 3·2 weeks). Adverse skin radiation toxicity was assessed preoperatively using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity grading system. Skin-sparing mastectomy and DIEP flap reconstruction were planned for 2-6 weeks after completion of preoperative radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of open breast wounds greater than 1 cm width requiring a dressing at 4 weeks after surgery, assessed in all participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02771938, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and Dec 11, 2017, 33 patients were enrolled. At 4 weeks after surgery, four (12·1%, 95% CI 3·4-28·2) of 33 patients had an open breast wound greater than 1 cm. One (3%) patient had confluent moist desquamation (grade 3). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy followed by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate DIEP flap reconstruction is feasible and technically safe, with rates of breast open wounds similar to those reported with post-mastectomy radiotherapy. A randomised trial comparing preoperative radiotherapy with post-mastectomy radiotherapy is required to precisely determine and compare surgical, oncological, and breast reconstruction outcomes, including quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research.

Patient and clinician satisfaction and clinical outcomes of Magseed compared with wire-guided localisation for impalpable breast lesions.

BACKGROUND: Guide-wire localisation remains the most commonly used technique for localisation of impalpable breast lesions in the UK. One alternative is magnetic seed localisation. We aimed to investigate patient and clinician satisfaction in two consecutive cohorts, describe re-excision and positive margin rates, and explore reasons for positive margins and the implications for localisation techniques. METHODS: A single-institution prospective service evaluation of two cohorts of consecutive cases of wire and then Magseed localisation was carried out. Data were collected on patient and clinician satisfaction, clinico-pathological findings, and causes of involved margins. T tests were used to compare continuous variables and Chi-squared test for satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: 168 consecutive cases used wire-guided localisation (WGL) and 128 subsequent cases used Magseeds. Patients reported less anxiety between localisation and surgery in the Magseed group, and clinicians reported greater ease of use of Magseeds. There were no differences in lesion size, surgical complexity, or re-excision rate between the groups. In a subset of patients receiving standard wide local excision (i.e., excluding mammoplasties), the impact on margin involvement was investigated. There was no significant difference in radiological under-sizing or accuracy of localisation. However, specimen weight and eccentricity of the lesion were statistically significantly lower in the Magseed group. Despite this, re-excision rates were not significantly different (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large study of satisfaction with localisation and showed clinician preference for Magseed and a reduction in patient anxiety. It also demonstrated similar positive margin rates despite smaller specimen weights in the Magseed group. Magnetic seed localisation offers an acceptable clinical alternative to guide wire localisation. The impact on local service provision should also be considered.

A scoring system for 3D surface images of breast reconstruction developed using the Delphi consensus process.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction is challenging. In the absence of an objective measurement, panel assessment is widely adopted. Heterogeneity of scales and poor internal consistency make comparison difficult. Development and validation of an expert panel scale using a Delphi consensus process is described. It was designed specifically for use as the gold standard for development of an objective evaluation tool using 3-Dimensional Surface Imaging (3D-SI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 20 items relating to aesthetic assessment were identified for consideration in the Delphi consensus process. Items were selected for inclusion in the definitive panel scale by iterative rounds of voting according to importance, consensus discussion, and a final vote. The Delphi-derived scale was tested on a clinical research series for intra- and inter-panellist, and intra-panel reliability, and correlation with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). RESULTS: 61 surgeons participated in the Delphi process. Oncoplastic and plastic surgeons were represented. The Delphi-derived scale included symmetry, volume, shape, position of breast mound, nipple position, and a global score. Intra-panellist reliability ranged from poor to almost perfect (wκ<0to0.86), inter-rater reliability was fair (ICC range 0.4-0.5) for individual items and good (ICC0.6) for the global score, intra-panel reliability was moderate to substantial (wκ0.4-0.7), and correlation with PROMs was moderate (r = 0.5p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi-derived panel evaluation is at least as good as other scales in the literature and has been developed specifically to provide expert evaluation of aesthetics after breast reconstruction. The logistical constraints of panel assessment remain, reinforcing the need to develop an objective evaluation method.

3-Dimensional objective aesthetic evaluation to replace panel assessment after breast-conserving treatment.

BACKGROUND: Two-thirds of patients with early breast cancer undergo breast-conserving treatment (BCT). Aesthetic outcome is important and has long term implications for psychosocial wellbeing. The aesthetic goal of BCT is symmetry for which there is no gold-standard measure. Panel scoring is the most widely adopted assessment but has well-described limitations. This paper describes a model to objectively report aesthetic outcome using measures derived from 3-dimensional surface images (3D-SI). METHOD: Objective measures and panel assessment were undertaken independently for 3D-SI of women who underwent BCT 1-5 years previously. Univariate analysis was used to test for association between measures and panel score. A forward stepwise multiple linear regression model was fitted to identify 3D measurements that jointly predicted the mean panel score. The fitted model coefficients were used to predict mean panel scores for an independent validation set then compared to the mean observed panel score. RESULTS: Very good intra-panel reliability was observed for the training and validation sets (wκ = 0.87, wκ = 0.84). Six 3D-measures were used in the multivariate model. There was a good correlation between the predicted and mean observed panel score in the training (n = 190) and validation (n = 100) sets (r = 0.68, r = 0.65). The 3D model tended to predict scores towards the median. The model was calibrated which improved the distribution of predicted scores. CONCLUSION: A six-variable objective aesthetic outcome model for BCT has been described and validated. This can predict and could replace panel assessment, facilitating the independent and unbiased evaluation of aesthetic outcome to communicate and compare results, benchmark practice, and raise standards.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in women at high risk of developing breast cancer.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a valuable addition to the options available for women at high risk of developing breast cancer. In this review, we summarize current knowledge about the high-risk genes, BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 and the associated guidelines with regard to risk-reducing surgery. We consider other genetic risks and high-risk lesions. We discuss the literature on bilateral mastectomy for breast cancer risk-reduction, and the results of nipple-sparing mastectomy in particular. Finally, we report on patient satisfaction with these procedures and the impact that nipple-sparing mastectomy may have on women at high-risk of breast cancer.

Comparison of Immediate versus Delayed DIEP Flap Reconstruction in Women Who Require Postmastectomy Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction in women who have undergone deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Patients who underwent DIEP flap reconstruction without postmastectomy radiotherapy were the control group. METHODS: Participants who had undergone DIEP flap reconstruction between September 1, 2009, and September 1, 2014, were recruited, answered the BREAST-Q, and underwent three-dimensional surface-imaging. A panel assessed the aesthetic outcome by reviewing these images. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven women participated. Eighty women (48 percent) underwent immediate DIEP flap reconstruction and no postmastectomy radiotherapy; 28 (17 percent) underwent immediate DIEP flap reconstruction with postmastectomy radiotherapy; 38 (23 percent) underwent simple mastectomy, postmastectomy radiotherapy, and DIEP flap reconstruction; and 21 (13 percent) underwent mastectomy with temporizing implant, postmastectomy radiotherapy, and DIEP flap reconstruction. Median satisfaction scores were significantly different among the groups (p < 0.05). Post hoc comparison demonstrated that women who had an immediate DIEP flap reconstruction were significantly less satisfied if they had postmastectomy radiotherapy. In women requiring radiotherapy, those undergoing delayed reconstruction after a simple mastectomy were most satisfied, but there was no significant difference between the immediate DIEP flap and temporizing implant groups. Median panel scores differed among groups, being significantly higher if the immediate reconstruction was not subjected to radiotherapy. There was no significant difference in panel assessment among the three groups of women who had received radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who avoid having their immediate DIEP flap reconstruction irradiated are more satisfied and have better aesthetic outcome than those who undergo postmastectomy radiotherapy. In women requiring radiotherapy and who wish to have an immediate or "delayed-immediate" reconstruction, there were no significant differences in panel or patient satisfaction. Therefore, immediate DIEP flap reconstruction or mastectomy with temporizing implant then DIEP flap surgery are acceptable treatment pathways in the context of post-mastectomy radiotherapy.

Validation of the Vectra XT three-dimensional imaging system for measuring breast volume and symmetry following oncological reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) of the breasts enables the measurement of breast volume and shape symmetry. If these measurements were sufficiently accurate and repeatable, they could be used in planning oncological breast surgery and as an objective measure of aesthetic outcome. The aim of this study was to validate the measurements of breast volume and symmetry provided by the Vectra XT imaging system. METHODS: To validate measurements, breast phantom models of true volume between 100 and 1000 cm3 were constructed and varying amounts removed to mimic breast tissue 'resections'. The volumes of the phantoms were measured using 3D-SI by two observers and compared to a gold standard. For intra-observer repeatability and inter-observer reproducibility in vivo, 16 patients who had undergone oncological breast surgery had breast volume and symmetry measured three times by two observers. RESULTS: A mean relative difference of 2.17 and 2.28% for observer 1 and 2 respectively was seen in the phantom measurements compared to the gold standard (n = 45, Bland Altman agreement). Intra-observer variation over ten repeated measurements demonstrated mean coefficients of variation (CV) of 0.58 and 0.49%, respectively. The inter-observer variation demonstrated a mean relative difference of 0.11% between the two observers. In patients, intra-observer variation over three repeated volume measurements for each observer was 3.9 and 3.8% (mean CV); the mean relative difference between observers was 5.78%. For three repeated shape symmetry measurements using RMS projection difference between the two breasts, the intra-observer variations were 8 and 14% (mean CV), the mean relative difference between observers was 0.43 mm for average symmetry values that ranged from about 3.5 to 15.5 mm. CONCLUSION: This first validation of breast volume and shape symmetry measurements using the Vectra XT 3D-SI system suggests that these measurements have the potential to assist in pre-operative planning and also as a measure of aesthetic outcome.

The Spatiotemporal Evolution of Lymph Node Spread in Early Breast Cancer.

Purpose: The most significant prognostic factor in early breast cancer is lymph node involvement. This stage between localized and systemic disease is key to understanding breast cancer progression; however, our knowledge of the evolution of lymph node malignant invasion remains limited, as most currently available data are derived from primary tumors.Experimental Design: In 11 patients with treatment-naïve node-positive early breast cancer without clinical evidence of distant metastasis, we investigated lymph node evolution using spatial multiregion sequencing (n = 78 samples) of primary and lymph node deposits and genomic profiling of matched longitudinal circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA).Results: Linear evolution from primary to lymph node was rare (1/11), whereas the majority of cases displayed either early divergence between primary and nodes (4/11) or no detectable divergence (6/11), where both primary and nodal cells belonged to a single recent expansion of a metastatic clone. Divergence of metastatic subclones was driven in part by APOBEC. Longitudinal ctDNA samples from 2 of 7 subjects with evaluable plasma taken perioperatively reflected the two major evolutionary patterns and demonstrate that private mutations can be detected even from early metastatic nodal deposits. Moreover, node removal resulted in disappearance of private lymph node mutations in ctDNA.Conclusions: This study sheds new light on a crucial evolutionary step in the natural history of breast cancer, demonstrating early establishment of axillary lymph node metastasis in a substantial proportion of patients. Clin Cancer Res; 24(19); 4763-70. ©2018 AACR.

The potential role of three-dimensional surface imaging as a tool to evaluate aesthetic outcome after Breast Conserving Therapy (BCT).

PURPOSE: To establish whether objective measurements of symmetry of volume and shape using three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI) can be used as surrogate markers of aesthetic outcome in patients who have undergone breast conserving therapy (BCT). METHODS: Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1-6 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a satisfaction questionnaire (BREAST-Q) and underwent 3D-SI. Volume and surface symmetry were measured on the images. Assessment of aesthetic outcome was undertaken by a panel of clinicians. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the relationship between volume and shape symmetry measurements with the panel score. Spearman's rho correlations were used to assess the relationship between the measurements and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: 200 women participated. Median volume symmetry was 87% (IQR 78-93) and shape symmetry was 5.9 mm (IQR 4.2-8.0). The participants were grouped according to panel assessment of aesthetic outcome (poor, fair, good, excellent) and the median volume and shape symmetry was calculated for each group. Volume symmetry significantly differed between the groups. Post hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that these differences existed between panel scores of fair versus good and good versus excellent. Median shape symmetry also differed according to patient panel groups with four significant pairwise comparisons between poor versus good, poor versus excellent, fair versus good and fair versus excellent. There was a significant but weak correlation of both volume symmetry and surface asymmetry with BREAST-Q scores (correlation coefficients 0.187 and -0.229, respectively). CONCLUSION: Breast volume and shape symmetry are both associated with panel assessment scores and patient satisfaction. The objective volume and shape symmetry measures were strongly associated with panel assessment scores, such that a 3D-SI tool could replace panel assessment as a faster and more objective method of evaluating aesthetic outcomes.

Initial experience of the BREAST-Q breast-conserving therapy module.

PURPOSE: The most recently developed module of the BREAST-Q, a validated patient outcome measure, is for patients who have undergone breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for cancer. This aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life after BCT using BREAST-Q, investigate clinical risk factors for lower satisfaction and explore the relationship between patient satisfaction with the appearance of their breasts and the other domains of the BREAST-Q. METHODS: Women who had undergone unilateral BCT in the preceding 1-6 years were invited to participate at the time of their annual surveillance mammogram. Clinicopathological data were collected from an electronic database. Linear regression was used to evaluate risk factors for lower satisfaction. Spearman's rho correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the relationship between domains. RESULTS: 200 women completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 60 years (SD 11.1). Time from surgery was 35.5 months (SD 17.8). Median score for 'Satisfaction with breasts' was 68 (interquartile range 55-80). Lowest scores were for 'sexual wellbeing' (57, IQR 45-66). On multivariate analysis, BMI at the time of surgery (p = 0.002), delayed wound healing (p = 0.001) and axillary surgery (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for lower satisfaction. There was significant correlation between 'Satisfaction with breasts' and all other BREAST-Q domains. CONCLUSION: High BMI, delayed wound healing and axillary surgery are risk factors for lower patient satisfaction. This first publication reporting the whole dataset for the BREAST-Q BCT will serve as a benchmark for future studies of patient satisfaction following BCT.

Nipple sparing versus skin sparing mastectomy: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer has a lifetime incidence of one in eight women. Over the past three decades there has been a move towards breast conservation and a focus on aesthetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety. For some patients, mastectomy is the preferred option. There is growing interest in the potential use of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, oncological safety remains unproven, and the benefits and indications have not been clearly identified. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM as compared with skin sparing mastectomy (SSM). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All original comparative studies including; randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies involving women undergoing either NSM or SSM for breast cancer will be included. Outcomes are primary-relating to oncological outcomes and secondary-relating to clinical, aesthetic, patient reported and quality of life outcomes. A comprehensive electronic literature search, designed by a search specialist, will be undertaken. Grey literature searches will also be conducted. Eligibility assessment will occur in two stages; title and abstract screening and then full text assessment. Each step will be conducted by two trained teams acting independently. Data will then be extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry. Data analysis will be undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM or SSM and preselected outcomes, heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy.

Anatomy relevant to conservative mastectomy.

Knowledge of the anatomy of the nipple and breast skin is fundamental to any surgeon practicing conservative mastectomies. In this paper, the relevant clinical anatomy will be described, mainly focusing on the anatomy of the "oncoplastic plane", the ducts and the vasculature. We will also cover more briefly the nerve supply and the arrangement of smooth muscle of the nipple. Finally the lymphatic drainage of the nipple and areola will be described. An appreciation of the relevant anatomy, together with meticulous surgical technique may minimise local recurrence and ischaemic complications.

The "postcode lottery" for the surgical correction of gynaecomastia in NHS England.

INTRODUCTION: Action On Plastic Surgery (AOPS) criteria for funding of gynaecomastia surgery are: the patient should be post-pubertal, have a BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2), endocrine and drug causes and breast cancer should be excluded and the patient should demonstrate psychological distress. We evaluated how NHS funding for gynaecomastia surgery varies between Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England and whether there is a "postcode lottery". METHODS: The gynaecomastia surgery policies for 211 CCGs in NHS England were reviewed against the AOPS criteria and grouped according to their funding policies: group 1 (if criteria met, funding approved); group 2, (if criteria met, prior approval required); group 3 (no criteria, individual funding request only) and group 4 (no funding). RESULTS: Policies were available for all CCGs. Fifty-nine (28.0%) CCGs were in group 1, 87 (41.2%) in group 2, 44 (20.9%) in group 3 and 21 (10.0%) in group 4. Of those in groups 1 and 2, five (3.4%) CCGs used all six AOPS criteria. Approximately 70% CCGs with criteria (in groups 1 and 2) stipulated that the patient should be post-pubertal, have a BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2) and endocrine and drug causes should be excluded. Breast cancer should be excluded in 51.4% and the patient should show psychological distress in 13.7% CCGs. Of those in groups 1 and 2, 118 (80.8%) CCGs specified additional criteria. CONCLUSIONS: CCGs do not use the AOPS criteria uniformly and restrict surgery according to their own criteria. Overall, there is a "postcode lottery" for gynaecomastia surgery within NHS England.