Explore the vast range of titles available.

Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients' decisions. However, patients' decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions focus this dilemma sharply. RRM reduces breast cancer (BC) risk, but is invasive and can have iatrogenic consequences. Previous evidence suggests that emotion guides patients' decision-making about RRM. We interviewed patients to better understand how they made decisions about RRM, using findings to consider how clinicians could ethically respond to their decisions. Qualitative face-to-face interviews with 34 patients listed for RRM surgery and two who had decided against RRM. Patients generally did not use objective risk estimates or, indeed, consider risks and benefits of RRM. Instead emotions guided their decisions: they chose RRM because they feared BC and wanted to do 'all they could' to prevent it. Most therefore perceived RRM to be the 'obvious' option and made the decision easily. However, many recounted extensive post-decisional deliberation, generally directed towards justifying the original decision. A few patients deliberated before the decision because fears of surgery counterbalanced those of BC. Patients seeking RRM were motivated by fear of BC, and the need to avoid potential regret for not doing all they could to prevent it. We suggest that choices such as that for RRM, which are made emotionally, can be respected as autonomous decisions, provided patients have considered risks and benefits. Drawing on psychological theory about how people do make decisions, as well as normative views of how they should, we propose that practitioners can guide consideration of risks and benefits even, where necessary, after patients have opted for surgery. This model of practice could be extended to other medical decisions that are influenced by patients' emotions.

IntroductionApproximately 40% of the 55 000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women’s quality of life, and only one in four women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR).Level 2 oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) combines removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (eg, local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (eg, therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy±IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible and well designed and addresses questions important to patients and the National Health Service.Methods and analysisMixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy±IBR. It will have four parts: (1) a National Practice Questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK; (2) a pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS versus mastectomy, the proportion in OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12 months postsurgery; (3) a qualitative interview study to explore patients’ attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes; and (4) design of the future study.All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities.Trial registration numberISRCTN18238549.

IntroductionOutcome reporting in research studies of breast reconstruction is inconsistent and lacks standardisation. The results of individual studies therefore cannot be meaningfully compared or combined limiting their value. A core outcome set (COS) has been developed to address these issues and identified 11 key outcomes to be measured and reported in all future research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). A COS represents what key outcomes should be measured. The next step is to determine how and when this should be done. The aim of this study is to develop a core measurement set (CMS) for use in research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group for the selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for relevant outcome domains included in the RBS COS. This will involve three phases with strategies to promote implementation as a final additional phase. The phases are (1) conceptual considerations in which the target population, procedures and settings are defined; (2) systematic reviews to identify existing clinical, patient-reported and cosmetic OMIs and, if appropriate, assess their quality using COSMIN methodology; (3) a modified Delphi process including sequential Delphi surveys involving approximately 100 healthcare professionals and a face to face consensus meeting to agree and ratify which outcome definitions and OMIs should be used and standardised time points for assessment; (4) strategies to promote dissemination and adoption of the CMS.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by University of Bristol Faculty Research Ethics Committee FREC ID 60221. Dissemination strategies will include scientific meeting presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications. Implementation activities will include engagement with journal editors and funders to promote uptake and use of the CMS.

IntroductionImplant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed reconstructive technique worldwide. Subpectoral reconstruction with mesh is the current standard of care but new prepectoral techniques have recently been introduced. Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) may improve outcomes for patients but robust evaluation is required. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are ideally needed but the short-term safety of PPBR is yet to be established; the technique and its indications are evolving and it has yet to be adopted by a sufficient number of surgeons for an RCT to be feasible.The Pre-BRA study aims to determine the feasibility of using mixed-methods within an IDEAL 2a/2b (IDEAL, Idea-Development-Exploration-Assessment-Long-term) study to explore the short-term safety of PPBR and determine when the technique is sufficiently stable for evaluation in a pragmatic RCT.Methods and analysisPre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b prospective multicentre cohort study with embedded qualitative research.Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating centres will be invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology and complication data will be collected and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 18 months postoperatively. The primary safety endpoint will be implant loss at 3 months.Surgeons performing PPBR will be asked to complete questionnaires regarding their practice and report any modifications made to the procedure or learning arising from complications via free-text response fields on electronic case-report forms. Semistructured will explore surgeons’ experiences in detail to identify emerging best practice. This will be fed back to participating surgeons to promote shared learning.The Pre-BRA study will aim to recruit 341 patients from 30 to 40 UK centres over a 12-month period. Recruitment will commence Spring 2019.Ethics and disseminationThe study has full ethical approval from OXFORD-B South Central Committee Ref:19/SC/0129. Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN11898000; Pre-results.

PurposeOncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study.MethodsAn electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined.Results58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12–24 months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units.ConclusionsOPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

Objective To determine how patients with breast cancer want their doctors to communicate with them. Design Qualitative study. Setting Breast unit and patients' homes. Participants 39 women with breast cancer. Main outcome measure Patients' reports of doctors' characteristics or behaviour that they valued or deprecated. Results Patients were not primarily concerned with doctors' communication skills. Instead they emphasised doctors' enduring characteristics. Specifically, they valued doctors whom they believed were technically expert, had formed individual relationships with them, and respected them. They therefore valued forms of communication that are currently not emphasised in training and research and did not intrinsically value others that are currently thought important, including provision of information and choice. Conclusions Women with breast cancer seek to regard their doctors as attachment figures who will care for them. They seek communication that does not compromise this view and that enhances confidence that they are cared for. Testing and elaborating our analysis will help to focus communication research and teaching on what patients need rather than on what professionals think they need.

Background Although clinicians are often criticized for giving inadequate information to patients with cancer, current recommendations to “provide full information” or “all the information patients want” are impractical. We therefore examined how surgeons manage information-giving to patients with breast cancer in practice, and how their approach compared with what patients wanted. Study design We interviewed 20 patients consulting after surgery in a specialist breast unit, and the eight surgeons whom they consulted. Qualitative analysis examined surgeon and patient perspectives on the purposes of information. Results Surgeons and patients both stated the importance of “honesty” and “telling everything” but surgeons did not want to tell everything they could and patients did not want to hear it. Patients wanted information mainly to maintain hope, demonstrate the surgeon’s expertise, and sustain a personal clinical relationship. Surgeons shaped their information-giving for the same reasons while providing necessary information about histology and treatment. Conclusions Surgeons and patients agreed strikingly about the purposes of information and indicated that giving information is a more complex task than current recommendations imply. We suggest that expert recommendations should catch up with practice rather than the reverse. That is, if recommendations are to reflect patients’ real rather than assumed needs, and be realistic about how surgeons can meet these needs, the recommendations should be informed by knowledge of how patients and surgeons already reconcile these needs in clinical practice.

Pre-surgical studies allow study of the relationship between mutations and response of oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) but have been limited to small biopsies. Here in phase I of this study, we perform exome sequencing on baseline, surgical core-cuts and blood from 60 patients (40 AI treated, 20 controls). In poor responders (based on Ki67 change), we find significantly more somatic mutations than good responders. Subclones exclusive to baseline or surgical cores occur in ∼30% of tumours. In phase II, we combine targeted sequencing on another 28 treated patients with phase I. We find six genes frequently mutated: PIK3CA , TP53 , CDH1 , MLL3 , ABCA13 and FLG with 71% concordance between paired cores. TP53 mutations are associated with poor response. We conclude that multiple biopsies are essential for confident mutational profiling of ER+ breast cancer and TP53 mutations are associated with resistance to oestrogen deprivation therapy. Aromatase inhibitors are used to treat oestrogen receptor positive breast cancers but the molecular basis for the response of patients is unclear. Here, the authors use samples from an aromatase inhibitor clinical trial and show that tumours from poor responders have more mutations than good responders and also more frequently harbour p53 mutations.

PurposeWomen’s worry about developing breast cancer may influence their decision to use preventive therapy. However, the direction of this relationship has been questioned. We prospectively investigated the relationship between breast cancer worry and uptake of preventive therapy. The socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with high breast cancer worry were also investigated.MethodsWomen at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited from clinics across England (n = 408). Participants completed a survey on their breast cancer worry, socio-demographic and clinical factors. Uptake of tamoxifen was recorded at 3 months (n = 258 women, 63.2%). Both primary and sensitivity analyses were conducted using different classifications of low, medium and high worry.Results39.5% of respondents reported medium breast cancer worry at baseline and 21.2% reported high worry. Ethnic minority women were more likely to report high worry than white women (OR = 3.02, 95%CI 1.02, 8.91, p = 0.046). Women educated below degree level were more likely to report high worry than those with higher education (OR = 2.29, 95%CI 1.28, 4.09, p = 0.005). No statistically significant association was observed between worry and uptake. In the primary analysis, fewer respondents with medium worry at baseline initiated tamoxifen (low worry = 15.5%, medium = 13.5%, high = 15.7%). In the sensitivity analysis, participants with medium worry reported the highest uptake of tamoxifen (19.7%).ConclusionsNo association was observed between worry and uptake, although the relationship was affected by the categorisation of worry. Standardised reporting of the classification of worry is warranted to allow transparent comparisons across cohorts.