The Pre-BRA (pre-pectoral Breast Reconstruction EvAluation) feasibility study: protocol for a mixed-methods IDEAL 2a/2b prospective cohort study to determine the safety and effectiveness of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction

Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Prepectoral techniques are becoming standard of care for implant-based breast reconstruction due to reduced impact on chest wall function and improved patient satisfaction. Evidence to support these benefits, however, is lacking. Here, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) in the Pre-BRA cohort are reported.

METHODS

Women undergoing PPBR after mastectomy for breast cancer or risk reduction between July 2019 and December 2020 were recruited. Participants completed the BREAST-Q preoperatively and at 3 and 18 months following surgery together with a single item evaluating overall satisfaction at 18 months. Women completing at least one BREAST-Q scale at any timepoint were eligible for inclusion. Questionnaires were scored according to the developers' instructions and scores compared over time. Exploratory analysis, adjusting for baseline scores was performed to explore factors impacting PROs.

RESULTS

In total 338 of 343 (98.5%) women undergoing PPBR at 40 UK centres were included in the analysis. Compared with baseline scores, women reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful decreases in both 'Physical' and 'Sexual well-being' at 3 and 18 months. Adjusting for baseline, at 18 months, those experiencing implant loss or having surgery for malignancy reported lower scores in all BREAST-Q domains. Overall, two-thirds of women (167/251) rated the outcome of their reconstruction as 'excellent/very good', but experiencing major complications, implant loss, and being dissatisfied with wrinkling/rippling in the reconstructed breast were associated with reduced satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PPBR impacts postoperative physical well-being and PROs are variable. These findings should be discussed with patients to support informed decision-making based on realistic expectations of outcome.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ISRCTN11898000.

Examining the application of the IDEAL framework in the reporting and evaluation of innovative invasive procedures: secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The development of new surgical procedures is fundamental to advancing patient care. The Idea, Developments, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework describes study designs for stages of innovation. It can be difficult to apply due to challenges in defining and identifying innovative procedures. This study examined how the IDEAL framework is operationalised in real-world settings; specifically, the types of innovations evaluated using the framework and how authors justify their choice of IDEAL study design.

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Citation searches (Web of Science and Scopus) identified studies following the IDEAL framework and citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies of invasive procedures/devices of any design citing any of the ten key IDEAL/IDEAL_D papers.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

All relevant text was extracted. Three frameworks were developed, namely: (1) type of innovation under evaluation; (2) terminology used to describe stage of innovation and (3) reported rationale for IDEAL stage.

RESULTS

48 articles were included. 19/48 described entirely new procedures, including those used for the first time in a different clinical context (n=15/48), reported as IDEAL stage 2a (n=8, 53%). Terminology describing stage of innovation was varied, inconsistent and ambiguous and was not defined. Authors justified their choice of IDEAL study design based on limitations in published evidence (n=36) and unknown feasibility and safety (n=32) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Identifying stage of innovation is crucial to inform appropriate study design and governance decisions. Authors' rationale for choice of IDEAL stage related to the existing evidence base or lack of sufficient outcome data for procedures. Stage of innovation was poorly defined with inconsistent descriptions. Further work is needed to develop methods to identify innovation to inform practical application of the IDEAL framework. Defining the concept of innovation in terms of uncertainty, risk and degree of evidence may help to inform decision-making.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral breast reconstruction (PPBR) has recently been introduced to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic outcomes in women having implant-based procedures. High-quality evidence to support the practice of PPBR, however, is lacking. Pre-BRA is an IDEAL stage 2a/2b study that aimed to establish the safety, effectiveness, and stability of PPBR before definitive evaluation in an RCT. The short-term safety endpoints at 3 months after surgery are reported here.

METHODS

Consecutive patients electing to undergo immediate PPBR at participating UK centres between July 2019 and December 2020 were invited to participate. Demographic, operative, oncology, and complication data were collected. The primary outcome was implant loss at 3 months. Other outcomes of interest included readmission, reoperation, and infection.

RESULTS

Some 347 women underwent 424 immediate implant-based reconstructions at 40 centres. Most were single-stage direct-to-implant (357, 84.2 per cent) biological mesh-assisted (341, 80.4 per cent) procedures. Conversion to subpectoral reconstruction was necessary in four patients (0.9 per cent) owing to poor skin-flap quality. Of the 343 women who underwent PPBR, 144 (42.0 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication. Implant loss occurred in 28 women (8.2 per cent), 67 (19.5 per cent) experienced an infection, 60 (17.5 per cent) were readmitted for a complication, and 55 (16.0 per cent) required reoperation within 3 months of reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates following PPBR are high and implant loss is comparable to that associated with subpectoral mesh-assisted implant-based techniques. These findings support the need for a well-designed RCT comparing prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction to establish best practice for implant-based breast reconstruction.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10081873.

Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: early and long-term safety evaluation of 146 unselected cases of the early pre-pectoral era of a single-institution, including cases with previous breast irradiation and post-mastectomy radiation therapy

We re-evaluated acute and early-late toxicity-related factors among pre-pectoral immediate tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction (BR) unselected, first-era, cases, including previous breast radiation treatment and post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). A retrospective analysis of 146 (117 therapeutic and 29 prophylactic) pre-pectoral reconstructions, between 2012 and 2016, considered patient-related (age, body mass index [BMI], smoke-history, comorbidity, BRCA mutation), and treatment-related characteristics (previous irradiation, axillary surgery, PMRT, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and target-therapy). Safety was evaluated as acute and early-late complications, and TE/I failures. At multivariate analysis of the 146 cases (117 patients submitted to BR) a significant factor related to acute toxicity was: BMI ≥ 25 (31.3% [≥ 25] vs 8.8% [< 25]; OR 4.44, 95% CI 1.56-12.6; p = 0.003), while previous breast surgery on ipsilateral side presented a borderline significance (31.6% [previous surgery] vs 7.4% [no previous surgery]; OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.97-14.40; p = 0.055). Factors significantly related to TE/I failure were: current or previous smoking exposition (13.8% [smokers] vs 2.6% [non-smokers]; OR 7.32, 95% CI 1.37-39.08; p = 0.02) and preoperative chemotherapy (18.8% [yes] vs 3.5% [no]; OR 8.16, 95% CI 1.29-51.63; p = 0.026). At 4-year median follow-up, 3 deaths, 5 locoregional recurrences, and 14 distant metastases occurred. Immediate pre-pectoral BR is safe and effective, with low rates of acute and early-late complications. BMI and previous breast surgery were related to higher complications but not failure; smoking and preoperative chemotherapy were related to TE/I explant. Previous RT and PMRT were related neither to early-late toxicity nor failure.

Prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction after skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (OPBC-02/ PREPEC): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial

INTRODUCTION

The emphasis on aesthetic outcomes and quality of life (QoL) has motivated surgeons to develop skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy (SSM/ NSM) for breast cancer treatment or prevention. During the same operation, a so-called immediate breast reconstruction is performed. The breast can be reconstructed by positioning of a breast implant above (prepectoral) or below (subpectoral) the pectoralis major muscle or by using the patients' own tissue (autologous reconstruction). The optimal positioning of the implant prepectoral or subpectoral is currently not clear. Subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is still standard care in many countries, but prepectoral IBBR is increasingly performed. This heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice is calling for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to guide treatment decisions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

International, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial. The primary objective of this trial is to test whether prepectoral IBBR provides better QoL with respect to long-term (24 months) physical well-being (chest) compared with subpectoral IBBR for patients undergoing SSM or NSM for prevention or treatment of breast cancer. Secondary objectives will compare prepectoral versus subpectoral IBBR in terms of safety, QoL and patient satisfaction, aesthetic outcomes and burden on patients. Total number of patients to be included: 372 (186 per arm).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval has been obtained for the lead investigator's site by the Ethics Committee 'Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz' (2020-00256, 26 March 2020). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, independent of the results, following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials standards for RCTs and good publication practice. Metadata describing the type, size and content of the datasets will be shared along with the study protocol and case report forms on public repositories adhering to the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse) principles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04293146.