Results from the BRIOS randomised trial

Current practice and barriers of mesh-assisted implant-based breast reconstruction in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey of 110 hospitals

BACKGROUND

The current National Practice Questionnaire of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) (NPQi) was to assess the clinical practice of mesh-assisted IBBR in China.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to 110 hospitals in China, which have more than 200 breast cancer operations performed in 2017. The survey mainly included questions on the type and timing of IBBR, questions about the use of TiLOOP® Bra and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and the complications of IBBR.

RESULTS

IBBR was routinely carried out in 86.36% (95/110) hospitals. IBBR was the most frequently-used (65.7%, 4,296/6,534) BR after mastectomy with a median of 24 cases (IQR 7.5-65) in each hospital. TiLOOP® Bra and ADM were available in 49.5% and 33.7% hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with ADM offered were more likely to located in economically developed regions (65.6%), when compared with hospitals without any mesh offered (14/35, 40.0%, P = 0.036) and with only TiLOOP® Bra offered (16/28, 57.1%, P = 0.032). The surgery volume was largely variated from hospitals without any mesh offered (median 380 cases, IQR 304-550), with only TiLOOP® Bra offered (median 790 cases, IQR 439-1096, P = 0.001) and with ADM offered (median 797 cases, IQR 497-1528, P < 0.001). Higher proportion of one-stage mesh-augmented direct-to-implant BR and lower proportion of autologous BR were observed in hospitals with mesh offered. The reported major complications were similar between hospitals with or without mesh offered.

CONCLUSIONS

The NPQi has provided a valuable insight into the current practice of IBBR and mesh used in China. The introduction of mesh-assisted techniques has revolutionized the clinical practice.

Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Suggested advantages are that ADMs facilitate one-stage IBBR and improve aesthetic outcomes. We compared immediate one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR with two-stage IBBR (current standard of care). Our previously reported secondary endpoint showed that one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR was associated with significantly more adverse outcomes. Here, we present the primary endpoint results aiming to assess whether one-stage IBBR with ADM provides higher patient-reported quality of life (QOL) compared with two-stage IBBR.

METHODS

This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (BRIOS study) was done in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. We recruited women aged older than 18 years with breast carcinoma or a genetic predisposition who intended to undergo skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate IBBR. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo one-stage IBBR with ADM (Strattice, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ, USA) or two-stage IBBR. Randomisation was stratified by centre and indication for surgery (oncological or prophylactic) in blocks of ten participants. The primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL, as measured with the BREAST-Q (ie, health-related QOL scales and satisfaction scales), in the modified intention-to-treat population. The study follow-up is complete. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR5446.

FINDINGS

Between April 14, 2013, and May 29, 2015, we enrolled 142 women, of whom 69 were randomly assigned to receive one-stage ADM-assisted IBBR and 73 to receive two-stage IBBR. After exclusions, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 60 patients in the one-stage group and 61 patients in the two-stage group. Of these, 48 women (mean follow-up 17·0 months [SD 7·8]) in the one-stage group and 44 women (17·2 months [SD 6·7]) in the two-stage group completed the BREAST-Q at least 1 year after implant placement. We found no significant differences in postoperative patient-reported QOL domains, including physical wellbeing (one-stage mean 78·0 [SD 14·1] vs two-stage 79·3 [12·2], p=0·60), psychosocial wellbeing (72·6 [17·3] vs 72·8 [19·6], p=0·95), and sexual wellbeing (58·0 [17·0] vs 57·1 [19·5], p=0·82), or in the patient-reported satisfaction domains: satisfaction with breasts (63·4 [15·8] vs 60·3 [15·4], p=0·35) and satisfaction with outcome (72·8 [19·1] vs 67·8 [16·3], p=0·19).

INTERPRETATION

Taken together with our previously published findings, one-stage IBBR with ADM does not yield superior results in terms of patient-reported QOL compared with two-stage IBBR. Risks for adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the one-stage ADM group. Use of ADM for one-stage IBBM should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

FUNDING

Pink Ribbon, Nuts-Ohra, and LifeCell.

Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire

Introduction

The introduction of biological and synthetic meshes has revolutionised the practice of implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) but evidence for effectiveness is lacking. The iBRA (implant Breast Reconstruction evAluation) study is a national trainee-led project that aims to explore the practice and outcomes of IBBR to inform the design of a future trial. We report the results of the iBRA National Practice Questionnaire (NPQ) which aimed to comprehensively describe the provision and practice of IBBR across the UK.

Methods

A questionnaire investigating local practice and service provision of IBBR developed by the iBRA Steering Group was completed by trainee and consultant leads at breast and plastic surgical units across the UK. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and variation between centres and overall provision of care examined.

Results

81 units within 79 NHS-hospitals completed the questionnaire. Units offered a range of reconstructive techniques, with IBBR accounting for 70% (IQR:50–80%) of participating units' immediate procedures. Units on average were staffed by 2.5 breast surgeons (IQR:2.0–3.0) and 2.0 plastic surgeons (IQR:1.0–3.0) performing 35 IBBR cases per year (IQR:20-50). Variation was demonstrated in the provision of novel different techniques for IBBR especially the use of biological (n = 62) and synthetic (n = 25) meshes and in patient selection for these procedures.

Conclusions

The iBRA-NPQ has demonstrated marked variation in the provision and practice of IBBR in the UK. The prospective audit phase of the iBRA study will determine the safety and effectiveness of different approaches to IBBR and allow evidence-based best practice to be explored.

•

Implant breast reconstruction (IBBR) and the range of techniques is poorly evidence based.

•

We aimed to explore the current practice of IBBR in the UK to inform the design of a future definitive study.

•

Significant variation was demonstrated in the availability of techniques and patient selection for IBBR.

•

There is a need for well-designed studies to establish best practice and improve outcomes for patients considering IBBR.