Evaluation of cosmetic outcome following breast-conserving therapy in trials: panel versus digitalized analysis and the role of PROMs

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

Breast-conserving surgery with the geometric compensation/split reduction technique. Indications, oncologic safety and cosmesis. A cohort series and systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Geometric Compensation Technique (GCT) and the Split Reduction Technique (SRT) enables breast conserving surgery (BCS) in selected patients with breast cancer initially candidates to mastectomy.

METHODS

Observational study of patients with breast cancer who underwent GCT consecutively treated. Evaluated retrospectively: indications, clinical characteristics, surgical features and recurrences. Cosmesis were evaluated prospectively by the BCCT.core software, Harris/Harvard and Garbay scales. Descriptive statistics were performed, chi-square test was used to compare aesthetic outcomes; Kappa and Weighted Kappa test was used to assess agreement between the postoperative evaluations; Kaplan-Meier model for follow-up and recurrence. A systematic review was carried out using PRISMA methodology.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were evaluated, 26 (72.2%) with medium/large breasts with or without ptosis, seven (19.4%) with small breasts with or without ptosis, a profile undergoing GCT not previously identified in the literature. The mean tumor clinical size was 3.65 ± 1.59 cm. 34 (94.4%) patients underwent GCT. Mean follow-up time was 36.6 ± 16.8 months, with no local recurrences. According to BCCT.core, the postoperative aesthetic was good in 17 (51.5%) patients and 11 (33.3%) was reasonable. In the systematic review, 3.584 articles were evaluated, 20 articles were selected, 243 patients undergoing GCT were found, with several indications for BCS instead of mastectomy, with high rates of free margins, low recurrence and good aesthetic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

GCT, an oncologically safe and aesthetically satisfactory option, has been extended to patients with small and medium breasts with ptosis, large tumors to breast volume or in unfavorable resection sites, initially candidates for mastectomy.

Hospital costs and cosmetic outcome of benign and high-risk breast lesions managed by vacuum-assisted excision versus surgical excision

Objectives:

Although vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical excision (SE), the latter is most commonly used for the management of benign and high-risk breast lesions. To evaluate the healthcare benefit of VAE, hospital costs and cosmetic outcome after VAE were compared to SE. Additionally, the impact of VAE implementation on hospital costs was investigated.

Methods:

This was a single-centre retrospective cohort study with two cohorts: “VAE” and “SE”. All patients with a benign or high-risk lesion excised by VAE or SE from January 2016 up to December 2019 were included. Cosmetic outcome was measured with the BCTOS-cosmetic subscale, and hospital costs were presented as mean (SD) and median (IQR).

Results:

During the study period, 258 patients with 295 excised lesions were included. The initial procedure was VAE in 102 patients and SE in 156 patients. Hospital costs after (median € 2324) were significantly lower than before (median € 3,144) implementation of VAE (mean difference € 1,004, p < 0.001), most likely attributable to the lower costs for patients treated with VAE (mean difference € 1,979, p < 0.001). Mean cosmetic outcome was comparable between VAE (median 1.35) and SE (median 1.44, p = 0.802).

Conclusions:

Implementing VAE as an alternative treatment option for benign and high-risk breast lesions resulted in a large decrease in hospital costs but a cosmetic benefit of VAE could not be demonstrated in this retrospective study.

Advances in knowledge:

Costs associated with the complete patient pathway were included and not only VAE was compared to SE but also the before cohort was compared to the after cohort to demonstrate the benefit of VAE implementation in clinical practice. Additionally, cosmetic outcome was compared between VAE and SE using patient reported outcome measures.

A Comparative Analysis of Patient Satisfaction and Cosmetic Outcomes after Breast Reconstruction through BREAST-Q and the Judgment of Medical Panels: Does it Reflect Well in Terms of Aesthetics in Korean Patients?

Background  Currently, the BREAST-Q can effectively measure patient's satisfaction on the quality of life from the patient's perspective in relation to different type of breast reconstruction. However, evaluation of patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes in breast reconstruction may have potential to led bias.

Methods  To maximize the benefits of using BREAST-Q to evaluate clinical outcome, we performed comparative study focused on the correlation between postoperative BREAST-Q and cosmetic outcomes assessed by medical professionals. For the current analysis, we used three postoperative BREAST-Q scales (satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, and sexual well-being). The Ten-Point Scale by Visser et al was applied to provide reproducible grading of the postoperative cosmetic outcomes of the breast. The system includes six subscales that measured overall aesthetic outcome, volume, shape, symmetry, scarring, and nipple-areolar complex. The photographic assessments were made by five medical professionals who were shown photographs on a computer screen in a random order. Obtained data were stored in Excel and evaluated by Spearman's correlations using SPSS Statistics.

Results  We enrolled 92 women in this study, 10 did not respond to all scales of postoperative BREAST-Q, the remaining 82 women had undergone breast reconstruction. The correlation between BREAST-Q score and aesthetic score measured by Ten-Point Scale for the three BREAST-Q scales all show positive values in Spearman's correlation coefficient.

Conclusion  A significant correlation without any bias observed was found between the patient's satisfaction measured by BREAST-Q after breast reconstruction and the medical expert's aesthetic evaluation.

Reliability of the BCCT.core software in evaluation of breast cosmesis - A systematic review

Breast cancer conservative treatment software (BCCT.core) has the potential to provide objective results using digital photographs, thus increasing the reliability, limiting the subjective interpretation and standardising the evaluation of breast cosmesis in patients. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the empirical evidence regarding the agreement between the BCCT.core and other methods used by health professionals and patients to assess breast cosmesis. The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies comparing the agreement between BCCT.core and other methods used to assess breast cosmesis. A total of 14 studies involving 2703 patients were included in the review. In studies where patients undertook self-assessment, the percentage agreement ranged from 69.2% to 74.8% and the kappa values ranged from slight (k = 0.12) to fair agreement. There was a low correlation between the BCCT.core and the Harvard scale when patients assessed cosmetic outcomes using photographs of their breasts (r = 0.165). A 75% and 42.8% agreement was reported in studies where clinicians assessed breast cosmesis by directly visualising the patients' breasts and photographs, respectively. Assessment of breast cosmesis by the expert panel using patient photographs reported a percentage agreement ranging from 25% to 83%. The results of this systematic review demonstrated an overall agreement of fair to moderate between the BCCT.core and the subjective scales used to assess breast cosmesis. However, clinician experience and patient values should be considered in clinical decision-making.

Assessing the effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in breast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity (HONEY trial): a trial protocol using a trial within a cohort design

Background

Breast cancer treatment with radiotherapy can induce late radiation toxicity, characterized by pain, fibrosis, edema, impaired arm mobility, and poor cosmetic outcome. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been proposed as treatment for late radiation toxicity; however, high-level evidence of effectiveness is lacking. As HBOT is standard treatment and reimbursed by insurers, performing classic randomized controlled trials is difficult. The “Hyperbaric OxygeN therapy on brEast cancer patients with late radiation toxicity” (HONEY) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design.

Methods

The HONEY trial will be conducted within the Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaluation (UMBRELLA). Within UMBRELLA, breast cancer patients referred for radiotherapy to the University Medical Centre Utrecht are eligible for inclusion. Patients consent to collection of clinical data and patient-reported outcomes and provide broad consent for randomization into future intervention studies. Patients who meet the HONEY in- and exclusion criteria (participation ≥ 12 months in UMBRELLA, moderate/severe breast or chest wall pain, completed primary breast cancer treatment except hormonal treatment, no prior treatment with HBOT, no contraindications for HBOT, no clinical signs of metastatic or recurrent disease) will be randomized to HBOT or control group on a 2:1 ratio (n = 120). Patients in the control group will not be informed about participation in the trial. Patients in the intervention arm will undergo 30–40 HBOT treatment sessions in a high pressure chamber (2.4 atmospheres absolute) where they inhale 100% oxygen through a mask. Cohort outcome measures (i.e., physical outcomes, quality of life, fatigue, and cosmetic satisfaction) of the HBOT group will be compared to the control group at 3 months follow-up.

Discussion

This pragmatic trial within the UMBELLA cohort was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT on late radiation toxicity in breast cancer patients using the TwiCs design. Use of the TwiCs design is expected to address issues encountered in classic randomized controlled trials, such as contamination (i.e., HBOT in the control group) and disappointment bias, and generate information about acceptability of HBOT.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04193722. Registered on 10 December 2019.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-020-04869-z.

Patient-reported outcomes of ductoscopy procedures for pathologic nipple discharge

Background

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is a common complaint often associated with breast cancer. However, when ultrasound and mammography are negative, the chances of malignancy are lower than 5%. Currently, major duct excision and microdochectomy are often recommended to alleviate symptoms and definitely rule out malignancy, but can cause infections and breastfeeding problems. Ductoscopy is a minimally invasive endoscopy technique that allows visualization of the mammary ducts and may not only obviate surgery but also detect malignancy. The aim of this study was to determine quality of life (QOL) after ductoscopy in patients with PND.

Materials and methods

All PND patients referred for ductoscopy between 2014 and 2015 to our hospital were included. Ductoscopy procedures were performed under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic. Patients were asked to fill out questionnaires (Breast-Q, EQ-5D-5L and SF-36) on the day of ductoscopy, and after 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months. Additionally, we performed reliability analysis to determine if these questionnaires were suitable for PND patients.

Results

Fifty consecutive patients underwent ductoscopy of whom 47 patients participated in this study. One domain of SF-36 (vitality) varied significantly over time. Breast-Q, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L showed that QOL after ductoscopy for PND was unaffected by ductoscopy. Success of the ductoscopy procedure was a significant predictor for satisfaction with the result domain.

Conclusion

Ductoscopy is a minimally invasive technique that does not seem to impact QoL of PND patients over time. Breast-Q, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L seem to be suitable existing QOL tests for PND patients undergoing ductoscopy, whereas SF-36 would require modifications.

Nipple malposition after bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction: Objective postoperative analysis utilizing BCCT.core computer software

Nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) are accepted as safe oncologic procedures for select patient populations, but objective evaluation of aesthetic outcomes has not been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to utilize BCCT.core computer software to objectively evaluate NAC malposition following bilateral NSM with implant reconstruction and compare the analysis to an expert panel. Postoperative photographs of 43 patients who underwent bilateral NSM were analyzed with the BCCT.core and by an expert panel of plastic surgery residents and attendings. The panel was asked to only evaluate nipple asymmetry and position. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine interrater reliability (n = 12) and between expert panel ratings and BCCT.core ratings. Statistics were performed using SPSS statistical package version 24.0. The ICC for the expert panel interrater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.941, 95% CI: 0.912-0.964). The analysis between BCCT.core individual parameters, specifically the breast retraction assessment (ie, BRA score = the difference in nipple position between the two breasts assessing breast symmetry) and expert panel, showed statistically significant positive correlation. The parameters provided by the BCCT.core software were correlated with both the mean expert panel rating and BCCT.core ratings. Therefore, it is plausible that BCCT.core parameters could be used to objectively quantify NAC malposition/asymmetry and guide treatment in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with implant reconstruction.

Chinese multicentre prospective registry of breast cancer patient-reported outcome-reconstruction and oncoplastic cohort (PRO-ROC): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Available patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are mainly from single institution or of small sample size, and the variations across hospitals and regions were not fully analysed. A multicentre, prospective, patient-reported outcome-reconstruction and oncoplastic cohort (PRO-ROC) will be planned to assess the PROs of Chinese patients with breast cancer who will undergo breast reconstruction (BR) or oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The inclusion criteria are female patients with breast cancer aged >18 years old who will undergo BR or OBCS. This cohort will include at least 10 000 consecutive patients (about 5000 patients who will undergo BR and 5000 patients who will undergo OBCS). The exposures were surgery types: BR and OBCS regardless of the techniques and materials used. The primary endpoint will be PROs, which include BREAST-Q and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and EORTC QoL Breast Cancer-specific version (QLQ-BR23)). All patients will be followed up to 24 months after operations. All data will be prospectively collected using an app software. Data will be analysed using SPSS and Stata software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study follows the Helsinki Declaration. All patients will be asked to sign an informed consent before enrolment. The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04030845; Pre-results.