Innovations for the future of breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Future innovations in science and technology with an impact on multimodal breast cancer management from a surgical perspective are discussed in this narrative review. The work was undertaken in response to the Commission on the Future of Surgery project initiated by the Royal College of Surgeons of England. METHODS: Expert opinion was sought around themes of surgical de-escalation, reduction in treatment morbidities, and improving the accuracy of breast-conserving surgery in terms of margin status. There was emphasis on how the primacy of surgical excision in an era of oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery is increasingly being challenged, with more effective systemic therapies that target residual disease burden, and permit response-adapted approaches to both breast and axillary surgery. RESULTS: Technologies for intraoperative margin assessment can potentially half re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery, and sentinel lymph node biopsy will become a therapeutic procedure for many patients with node-positive disease treated either with surgery or chemotherapy as the primary modality. Genomic profiling of tumours can aid in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies as well as prevention strategies. Molecular subtypes are predictive of response to induction therapies and reductive approaches to surgery in the breast or axilla. CONCLUSION: Treatments are increasingly being tailored and based on improved understanding of tumour biology and relevant biomarkers to determine absolute benefit and permit delivery of cost-effective healthcare. Patient involvement is crucial for breast cancer studies to ensure relevance and outcome measures that are objective, meaningful, and patient-centred.

This article describes how future innovations in science and technology influence the management of breast cancer from a surgical perspective. This work was undertaken in response to the Commission on the Future of Surgery project initiated by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: impact of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer on quality-of-life outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Primary endocrine therapy may be an alternative treatment for less fit women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. This study compared quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes in older women treated with surgery or primary endocrine therapy. METHODS: This was a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of surgery or primary endocrine therapy in women aged over 70 years with operable breast cancer. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of cancer QoL questionnaires QLQ-C30, -BR23, and -ELD14, and the EuroQol Five Dimensions 5L score at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for baseline variation in health, fitness, and tumour stage. RESULTS: The study recruited 3416 women (median age 77 (range 69-102) years) from 56 breast units. Of these, 2979 (87.2 per cent) had ER-positive breast cancer; 2354 women had surgery and 500 received primary endocrine therapy (125 were excluded from analysis due to inadequate data or non-standard therapy). Median follow-up was 52 months. The primary endocrine therapy group was older and less fit. Baseline QoL differed between the groups; the mean(s.d.) QLQ-C30 global health status score was 66.2(21.1) in patients who received primary endocrine therapy versus 77.1(17.8) among those who had surgery plus endocrine therapy. In the unmatched analysis, changes in QoL between 6 weeks and baseline were noted in several domains, but by 24 months most scores had returned to baseline levels. In the matched analysis, major surgery (mastectomy or axillary clearance) had a more pronounced adverse impact than primary endocrine therapy in several domains. CONCLUSION: Adverse effects on QoL are seen in the first few months after surgery, but by 24 months these have largely resolved. Women considering surgery should be informed of these effects.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: cluster randomized trial of two decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer on quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choices.

BACKGROUND: Rates of surgery and adjuvant therapy for breast cancer vary widely between breast units. This may contribute to differences in survival. This cluster RCT evaluated the impact of decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women with breast cancer, to ascertain whether DESIs influenced quality of life, survival, decision quality, and treatment choice. METHODS: A multicentre cluster RCT compared the use of two DESIs against usual care in treatment decision-making in older women (aged at least ≥70 years) with breast cancer. Each DESI comprised an online algorithm, booklet, and brief decision aid to inform choices between surgery plus adjuvant endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. The primary outcome was quality of life. Secondary outcomes included decision quality measures, survival, and treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 46 breast units were randomized (21 intervention, 25 usual care), recruiting 1339 women (670 intervention, 669 usual care). There was no significant difference in global quality of life at 6 months after the baseline assessment on intention-to-treat analysis (difference -0.20, 95 per cent confidence interval (C.I.) -2.69 to 2.29; P = 0.900). In women offered a choice of primary endocrine therapy versus surgery plus endocrine therapy, knowledge about treatments was greater in the intervention arm (94 versus 74 per cent; P = 0.003). Treatment choice was altered, with a primary endocrine therapy rate among women with oestrogen receptor-positive disease of 21.0 per cent in the intervention versus 15.4 per cent in usual-care sites (difference 5.5 (95 per cent C.I. 1.1 to 10.0) per cent; P = 0.029). The chemotherapy rate was 10.3 per cent at intervention versus 14.8 per cent at usual-care sites (difference -4.5 (C.I. -8.0 to 0) per cent; P = 0.013). Survival was similar in both arms. CONCLUSION: The use of DESIs in older women increases knowledge of breast cancer treatment options, facilitates shared decision-making, and alters treatment selection. Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2015-004220-61 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/), ISRCTN46099296 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Breast Angiosarcoma Surveillance Study: UK national audit of management and outcomes of angiosarcoma of the breast and chest wall.

BACKGROUND: Breast angiosarcomas are rare tumours of vascular origin. Secondary angiosarcoma occurs following radiotherapy for breast cancer. Angiosarcomas have high recurrence and poor survival rates. This is concerning owing to the increasing use of adjuvant radiotherapy for the treatment of invasive breast cancer and ductal cancer in situ (DCIS), which could explain the rising incidence of angiosarcoma. Outcome data are limited and provide a poor evidence base for treatment. This paper presents a national, trainee-led, retrospective, multicentre study of a large angiosarcoma cohort. METHODS: Data for patients with a diagnosis of breast/chest wall angiosarcoma between 2000 and 2015 were collected retrospectively from 15 centres. RESULTS: The cohort included 183 patients with 34 primary and 149 secondary angiosarcomas. Median latency from breast cancer to secondary angiosarcoma was 6 years. Only 78.9 per cent of patients were discussed at a sarcoma multidisciplinary team meeting. Rates of recurrence were high with 14 of 28 (50 per cent ) recurrences in patients with primary and 80 of 124 (64.5 per cent ) in those with secondary angiosarcoma at 5 years. Many patients had multiple recurrences: total of 94 recurrences in 162 patients (58.0 per cent). Median survival was 5 (range 0-16) years for patients with primary and 5 (0-15) years for those with secondary angiosarcoma. Development of secondary angiosarcoma had a negative impact on predicted breast cancer survival, with a median 10-year PREDICT prognostic rate of 69.6 per cent, compared with 54.0 per cent in the observed cohort. CONCLUSION: A detrimental impact of secondary angiosarcoma on breast cancer survival has been demonstrated. Although not statistically significant, almost all excess deaths were attributable to angiosarcoma. The increased use of adjuvant radiotherapy to treat low-risk breast cancer and DCIS is a cause for concern and warrants further study.

Patient-reported outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without biological or synthetic mesh.

BACKGROUND: Biological and synthetic meshes may improve the outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) by facilitating single-stage procedures and improving cosmesis. Supporting evidence is, however, limited. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of biological and synthetic mesh on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of IBBR 18 months after surgery. METHODS: Consecutive women undergoing immediate IBBR between February 2014 and June 2016 were recruited to the study. Demographic, operative, oncological and 3-month complication data were collected, and patients received validated BREAST-Q questionnaires at 18 months. The impact of different IBBR techniques on PROs were explored using mixed-effects regression models adjusted for clinically relevant confounders, and including a random effect to account for clustering by centre. RESULTS: A total of 1470 participants consented to receive the questionnaire and 891 completed it. Of these, 67 women underwent two-stage submuscular reconstructions. Some 764 patients had a submuscular reconstruction with biological mesh (495 women), synthetic mesh (95) or dermal sling (174). Fourteen patients had a prepectoral reconstruction. Compared with two-stage submuscular reconstructions, no significant differences in PROs were seen in biological or synthetic mesh-assisted or dermal sling procedures. However, patients undergoing prepectoral IBBR reported better satisfaction with breasts (adjusted mean difference +6.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.65 to11.61; P = 0.009). PROs were similar to those in the National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2008-2009 cohort, which included two-stage submuscular procedures only. CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in PROs of subpectoral IBBR with or without biological or synthetic mesh, but provides early data to suggest improved satisfaction with breasts following prepectoral reconstruction. Robust evaluation is required before this approach can be adopted as standard practice.

The NeST (Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer) study: National Practice Questionnaire of United Kingdom multi-disciplinary decision making.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is increasingly used in the treatment of breast cancer, yet it is clear that there is significant geographical variation in its use in the UK. This study aimed to examine stated practice across UK breast units, in terms of indications for use, radiological monitoring, pathological reporting of treatment response, and post-treatment surgical management. METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) from all UK breast units were invited to participate in the NeST study. A detailed questionnaire assessing current stated practice was distributed to all participating units in December 2017 and data collated securely usingREDCap. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each questionnaire item. RESULTS: Thirty-nine MDTs from a diverse range of hospitals responded. All MDTs routinely offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to a median of 10% (range 5-60%) of patients. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) was offered to a median of 4% (range 0-25%) of patients by 66% of MDTs. The principal indication given for use of neoadjuvant therapy was for surgical downstaging. There was no consensus on methods of radiological monitoring of response, and a wide variety of pathological reporting systems were used to assess tumour response. Twenty-five percent of centres reported resecting the original tumour footprint, irrespective of clinical/radiological response. Radiologically negative axillae at diagnosis routinely had post-NACT or post-NET sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in 73.0 and 84% of centres respectively, whereas 16% performed SLNB pre-NACT. Positive axillae at diagnosis would receive axillary node clearance at 60% of centres, regardless of response to NACT. DISCUSSION: There is wide variation in the stated use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy across the UK, with general low usage of NET. Surgical downstaging remains the most common indication of the use of NAC, although not all centres leverage the benefits of NAC for de-escalating surgery to the breast and/or axilla. There is a need for agreed multidisciplinary guidance for optimising selection and management of patients for NST. These findings will be corroborated in phase II of the NeST study which is a national collaborative prospective audit of NST utilisation and clinical outcomes.

Experiences of implant loss after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure in the UK, but almost one in ten women experience implant loss and reconstructive failure after this technique. Little is known about how implant loss impacts on patients' quality of life. The first phase of the Loss of implant Breast Reconstruction (LiBRA) study aimed to use qualitative methods to explore women's experiences of implant loss and develop recommendations to improve care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who experienced implant loss after immediate IBBR, performed for malignancy or risk reduction across six centres. Interviews explored decision-making regarding IBBR, and experiences of implant loss and support received. Thematic analysis was used to explore the qualitative interview data. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently and iteratively until data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Twenty-four women were interviewed; 19 had surgery for malignancy and five for risk reduction. The median time between implant loss and interview was 42 (range 22-74) months. Ten women had undergone secondary reconstruction, two were awaiting surgery, and 12 had declined further reconstruction. Three key themes were identified: the need for accurate information about the risks and benefits of IBBR; the need for more information about 'early-warning' signs of postoperative problems, to empower women to seek help; and better support following implant loss. CONCLUSION: Implant loss is a devastating event for many women. Better preoperative information and support, along with holistic patient-centred care when complications occur, may significantly improve the experience and outcome of care.

ANTECEDENTES: La reconstrucción mamaria inmediata con prótesis (implant-based breast reconstruction, IBBR) es el procedimiento reconstructivo más utilizado en el Reino Unido, pero casi una de cada diez mujeres presentará pérdida de la prótesis y fallo del procedimiento reconstructivo tras esta técnica. Se sabe poco de cómo la pérdida de la prótesis afecta la calidad de vida de las pacientes. La primera fase del estudio LiBRA tuvo como objetivo explorar la percepción de las mujeres ante la pérdida de la prótesis, utilizando métodos cualitativos, y proponer una serie de medidas para mejorar la atención sanitaria de estas pacientes. MÉTODOS: Se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas en una muestra de mujeres que padecieron la pérdida de la prótesis tras una IBBR inmediata, realizada por neoplasia o como procedimiento de reducción de riesgo, en seis centros. Las entrevistas analizaron la toma de decisiones con respecto a la IBBR inmediata, así como la percepción ante la pérdida del implante y el soporte recibido. Se utilizó un análisis por temas para examinar los datos de la entrevista cualitativa. El muestreo, la recopilación de datos y el análisis se realizaron de forma simultánea e iterativa hasta que se logró la saturación de datos. RESULTADOS: Se entrevistaron 24 pacientes; 19 en las que la indicación quirúrgica fue por cáncer y 5 por reducción de riesgo. La mediana del tiempo entre la pérdida del implante y la entrevista fue de 42 (rango 22-52) meses. Diez mujeres se habían sometido a una reconstrucción secundaria; dos estaban a la espera de la cirugía y 12 habían rechazado la reconstrucción posterior. Se identificaron tres temas clave, siendo las necesidades de: i) información precisa sobre los riesgos y beneficios de la IBBR, ii) más información sobre los signos de "alarma precoz" de las complicaciones postoperatorias que permitiesen a las mujeres buscar ayuda, y iii) mejor soporte tras la pérdida de la prótesis. CONCLUSIÓN: La pérdida de una prótesis es una complicación catastrófica para muchas mujeres. Una mejor información y apoyo preoperatorios, junto con una atención holística centrada en la paciente cuando se presentan las complicaciones, podrían mejorar significativamente la experiencia y el resultado de la atención.

Therapeutic mammaplasty is a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR. METHODS: The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P < 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.

ANTECEDENTES: La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P < 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

The NeST (neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer) study - Protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to assess the current utilization and short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant systemic therapies in breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has several potential advantages in the treatment of breast cancer. However, there is currently considerable variation in NST use across the UK. The NeST study is a national, prospective, multicentre cohort study that will investigate current patterns of care with respect to NST in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practice.Phase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of breast cancer patients, undergoing NST.Women undergoing NST as their MDT recommended primary breast cancer treatment between December 2017 and May 2018 will be included. The breast surgery and oncological professional associations and the trainee research collaborative networks will encourage participation by all breast cancer centres.Patient demographics, radiological, oncological, surgical and pathological data will be collected, including complications and the need for further intervention/treatment. Data will be collated to establish current practice in the UK, regarding NST usage and variability of access and provision of these therapies. Prospective data on 600 patients from ~50 centres are anticipated.Trial registration: ISRCTN11160072. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this study, as per the online Health Research Authority decision tool. The information obtained will provide valuable insights to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment. These data should establish current practice in the UK concerning NST, inform future service delivery as well as identifying further research questions.This protocol will be disseminated through the Mammary Fold Academic Research Collaborative (MFAC), the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network and the Association of Breast Surgery. Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, as well as being made accessible to relevant patient groups.

PO-36 - Thrombin Inhibition Preoperatively (TIP) in early breast cancer, the first clinical trial of NOACs as an anti-cancer agent: trial methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is associated with a 3-4 fold increased risk of VTE. These patients have a 4-fold lower survival than those remaining free of VTE, implying VTE is a surrogate marker for aggressive cancer. Tumour expression of thrombin pathway markers are increased in the oestrogen receptor negative (ER-), high Ki67, more aggressive breast cancer subtypes. In in vitro and in vivo studies, the thrombin pathway promotes cancer growth and metastases, highlighting the potential role of the thrombin pathway as a therapeutic target in cancer. AIM: To determine whether 14days of a preoperative oral Factor Xa inhibitor (Rivaroxaban) in oestrogen receptor negative early breast cancer patients results in inhibition of tumour proliferation as determined by a reduction in tumour Ki67 from baseline (pre-treatment) to 14days post treatment start (at time of surgical excision). RATIONALE: The TF-VIIa-FXa complex activates Protease Activated Receptor (PAR)2 to induce angiogensis, growth factors and tumour cell migration. Thrombin, in part via PAR1, induces angiogenesis, tumour cell proliferation as well as in vivo metastasis. In early breast cancer, TF and PAR2 expression is increased in the stroma, particularly in the more aggressive ER-, high Ki67 (proliferation) cancers. Rivaroxaban is an orally active direct Factor Xa inhibitor. Through inhibition of the TF-FVIIa-FXa complex, it can downregulate TF-FVIIa-FXa activation of PAR2, and inhibit conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. We hypothesise that 14days of Rivaroxaban will reduce breast cancer proliferation, as a surrogate marker for anti-cancer efficacy, in early breast cancer patients awaiting resectional surgery. RESULTS: Trial methodology: A multi-centre phase II preoperative 'Window-of Opportunity' randomised controlled trial of Rivaroxaban compared to no treatment in ER-, stage I-III early breast cancer patients. Patients will be randomised 1:1:1 (Rivaroxaban 20mg od: Rivaroxaban 10mg od: no treatment) and receive 14 (+/-3) days of treatment in the window between diagnosis and surgery. Randomisation will be blinded to pathologists, but not to patients or clinicians. Primary analysis will be based on the two Rivaroxaban arms being combined to form a Rivaroxaban: no treatment, 2:1 trial design, with change in Ki67 from baseline (pre) to post Rivaroxaban/no treatment (post) being the primary endpoint, and the no treatment arm acting as a reference group. Subgroup analysis of the Rivaroxaban arm (20mg od:10mg od) will allow assessment of dose-response. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Funder: National Institute for Health Research Eudract No: 2014-004909-33 REC Number: 15/NW/0406 UKCRN ID: 19731 Expected commencement: January 2016. For further information please contact Chief Investigator: cliona.kirwan@manchester.ac.uk.

The intensity of breast cancer patients' relationships with their surgeons after the first meeting: Evidence that relationships are not 'built' but arise from attachment processes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer clinicians are exhorted to build clinical relationships with their patients over time using patient-centred communication skills. An alternative view is that patients' sense of relationship is a response to clinicians' expertise and authority and therefore is normally present from the start. OBJECTIVE: We measured the intensity of breast cancer patients' sense of relationship with their surgeon after their first brief, diagnostically focused meeting in order to compare it with published reports from patients in other types and stages of clinical relationship. PARTICIPANTS: Women (N = 133) over 18 years old and due to undergo surgery for primary breast cancer were recruited consecutively from pre-operative clinics. DESIGN: Patients reported the intensity of their relationship with the surgeon on a standardised questionnaire (Working Alliance Inventory). We compared their ratings with published reports over the last 15 years, in which patients in other types of clinical relationship completed the same questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients' alliance with their surgeons was very high (mean 6.13, 95% CI: 5.99, 6.27, on a 1-7 scale), and at 90(th) percentile when compared with scores from other settings, including those characterized by many hours of talk addressing patients' emotional needs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer feel an intense sense of relationship with the surgeon from the first meeting, consistent with the view that their sense of relationship arises primarily from their recognition of the surgeon's expertise and authority. The challenge for surgeons is therefore not usually to 'build a relationship' but to support the sense of relationship that patients have from the start.

'Getting back to normal' or 'a new type of normal'? A qualitative study of patients' responses to the existential threat of cancer.

Existential concerns about cancer have been studied extensively in palliative care but less so in curative settings. The present report aims to describe ways in which patients viewed the continuity or discontinuity of their identity in the face of the mortal threat of cancer. Twenty-eight patients with breast, prostate or lung cancer attending pre-treatment, treatment or follow-up appointments were interviewed about their emotional experiences following diagnosis. Qualitative analysis followed an inductive, constant comparative approach. Patients spoke of 'getting back to normal', but presented two distinct accounts of 'normality'. Some, particularly those only recently diagnosed, maintained continuity to past identity by upholding previous routines, emphasising resilience and minimising the impact of cancer. Others talked of a new 'normality' discontinuous with their past. Most accounts, however, evidenced elements of continuity and discontinuity, often in ostensibly contradictory ways. We suggest that holding contradictory perspectives simultaneously characterises an intermediate stage of adjustment for some patients: between reliance on continuity with the past in the aftermath of diagnosis and, later, a sense of being a new person, changed by cancer. Practitioners should appreciate that patients' wishes for 'normality' can signify very different responses to cancer, and that holding such contradictory orientations is functional, not aberrant.

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision-making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. METHODS: A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision-making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7-9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed. RESULTS: A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed. CONCLUSION: The BRAVO study has used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. Widespread adoption by the reconstructive community will improve the quality of outcome assessment in effectiveness studies. Future work will evaluate how these key outcomes should best be measured.

Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The aim of this study was critically to appraise and evaluate the current evidence for ADM-assisted IBBR. METHODS: Comprehensive electronic searches identified complete papers published in English between January 2000 and August 2013, reporting any outcome of ADM-assisted IBBR. All systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) with more than 20 ADM recipients were included. Studies were critically appraised using AMSTAR for systematic reviews, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and its adaptation for NRSs. Characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 69 papers (8 systematic reviews, 1 RCT, 40 comparative studies and 20 case series) were identified, all of which were considered at high risk of bias, mostly due to patient selection and selective outcome reporting. The median ADM group sample size was 51.0 (i.q.r. 33.0-127.0). Most studies were single-centre (54), and they were often single-surgeon (16). ADM was most commonly used for immediate (40) two-stage IBBR (36) using human ADM (47), with few studies evaluating ADM-assisted single-stage procedures (10). All reported clinical outcomes (for example implant loss) and more than half of the papers (33) assessed process outcomes, but few evaluated cosmesis (16) or patient-reported outcomes (10). Heterogeneity between study design and, especially, outcome measurement precluded meaningful data synthesis. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for the value of ADMs in IBBR is limited. Use in practice should therefore be considered experimental, and evaluation within registries or well designed and conducted studies, ideally RCTs, is recommended to prevent widespread adoption of a potentially inferior intervention.

Breast cancer survivors' perspectives on whether clinical staff should ask breast cancer patients about childhood abuse.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have shown that women who recall childhood abuse are at increased risk of emotional problems following a breast cancer diagnosis. How services should respond is unclear given the risk of compounding the emotional trauma of cancer with questioning about abuse. Our aim was to present the research findings to women with experience of breast cancer so as to obtain their perspective on how this evidence should influence clinical practice. METHODS: Participants were women who had been treated for breast cancer at one of the study units and women with a history of breast cancer who were members of a local patient support group. Three focus groups were conducted (with six, five and three participants respectively). The interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Participants emphasised the importance of the research findings for cancer care. The consensus was that abuse and its consequences for patients being treated for cancer should not be a 'taboo' area, and that patients should be given the opportunity and choice to disclose abuse as part of a holistic programme of care. CONCLUSIONS: Services should examine how to include prompts about abuse as part of routine holistic assessment by clinical staff, who will need to be trained in eliciting and managing disclosures of abuse.

Risk, worry and cosmesis in decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy: analysis of 60 consecutive cases in a specialist breast unit.

INTRODUCTION: Although controversial, use of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is increasing. It is not clear whether reduction of objective breast cancer risk or other factors determine decisions for CRRM. We aimed to identify factors that influence these decisions by scrutinising how decisions were made in one centre. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 60 patients considered for CRRM in one centre. Data sources, analysed using qualitative methods, were records of routine psychological assessment, surgeon letters, case-notes and interviews with four surgeons. RESULTS: Perceptions of objective risk did not generally drive patients' requests or surgeons' decisions. Instead, CRRM appeared to be mainly performed for psychological reasons: to reduce patients' cancer worry and to achieve cosmetic benefits. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the term 'risk-reducing' surgery masks a clinical decision which usually reflects influences other than risk. As CRRM is often carried out for psychological reasons it follows that evidence about its psychosocial outcomes is needed.

How patients evaluate breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and why their evaluation often differs from that of their clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of breast reconstruction after treatment for cancer sometimes differs between the patient who receives it and the surgeon who performs it. Questionnaire studies shed little light on this. We therefore aimed to discover what factors influence how patients evaluate breast reconstruction and thereby to understand sources of disagreement between practitioners and patients in their evaluation. METHODS: At the study centre, patients who undergo reconstruction following breast cancer rate their subjective evaluation of the procedure, and the surgeon and breast care nurse jointly rate their assessment of cosmesis. We interviewed in depth 27 patients with a range of scores on each rating to elicit the reasons for their evaluations. Interviews were analysed qualitatively with particular attention to patients whose evaluations diverged from those of practitioners. RESULTS: Influences on patients' subjective evaluations included two aspects of cosmesis (how 'normal' they felt and how normal or attractive they thought they appeared to others), but also how much they trusted and respected their practitioners and felt cared for by them, whether reconstruction had helped to complete their 'cancer journey' and post-operative complications. CONCLUSION: Patients' subjective evaluation of reconstruction after cancer treatment extends well beyond cosmesis, and experience of cancer influences what they consider important. Evaluations therefore often differ from those of practitioners. Surgeons and specialist nurses need to be aware of the factors that influence patients' evaluations in order to guide patients appropriately in decisions about surgery, and to evaluate outcomes across the domains that matter to patients.

Predictors of onset of depression and anxiety in the year after diagnosis of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common after diagnosis of breast cancer. We examined to what extent these are recurrences of previous disorder and, controlling for this, whether shame, self-blame and low social support after diagnosis predicted onset of depression and anxiety subsequently. METHOD: Women with primary breast cancer who had been treated surgically self-reported shame, self-blame, social support and emotional distress post-operatively. Psychiatric interview 12 months later identified those with adult lifetime episodes of major depression (MD) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) before diagnosis and onset over the subsequent year. Statistical analysis examined predictors of each disorder in that year. RESULTS: Of the patients, two-thirds with episodes of MD and 40% with episodes of GAD during the year after diagnosis were experiencing recurrence of previous disorder. Although low social support, self-blame and shame were each associated with both MD and GAD after diagnosis, they did not mediate the relationship of disorder after diagnosis with previous disorder. Low social support, but not shame or self-blame, predicted recurrence after controlling for previous disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and depression during the first year after diagnosis of breast cancer are often the recurrence of previous disorder. In predicting disorder following diagnosis, self-blame and shame are merely markers of previous disorder. Low social support is an independent predictor and therefore may have a causal role.

Correlation of mRNA for oestrogen receptor beta splice variants ERbeta1, ERbeta2/ERbetacx and ERbeta5 with outcome in endocrine-treated breast cancer.

This study has been performed to test the hypothesis that different oestrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) splice variants may be important determinants of clinical parameters, including outcome, in post-menopausal women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine treatment but no chemotherapy. Splice variants ERbeta1, ERbeta2 and ERbeta5 have been analysed by semi-quantitative RT-PCR in a cohort of 105 patients with primary breast cancer. Clinical correlates included age, grade, size, nodal status, ERalpha, progesterone receptor, Ki67, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Seventy per cent of cases were ERbeta1 positive, 69% ERbeta2 positive and 70% ERbeta5 positive. Within the cohort, 47% were positive for all three variants while 10% were negative for all three. ERbeta1 exhibited no discernible relationship with disease outcome. ERbeta2 and ERbeta5 expression was significantly associated with better RFS (P<0.005), and ERbeta2 with better OS (P=0.0002). In multivariate analysis, ERbeta2 (P=0.006), nodal status and the level of Ki67 expression were independent predictors for RFS while ERbeta2 (P=0.0008) and Ki67 status were independent predictors for OS. In the ERalpha-positive cases, or in the subset of those receiving adjuvant tamoxifen, ERbeta2 was significantly associated with good RFS (P<0.0005) and was the only independent marker of OS. We conclude that precise identification of splice variants of ERbeta are more important assessors than is ERbeta1 alone of the biological status of individual breast cancers, and hence in predicting their response to endocrine therapy.