ObjectivesAspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public ...perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.DesignWe conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.SettingOnline survey and remote interviews.ParticipantsWe recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.ResultsIn the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.ConclusionsAmong the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.
IntroductionBreast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality ...information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques.Methods and analysisWomen undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR.Ethics and disseminationThe Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.
IntroductionNeoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant ...systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved.Methods and analysisA COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen’s University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely.RegistrationThe study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NG151) recommends considering daily aspirin for people with Lynch syndrome to reduce colorectal cancer risk. However, deciding whether to ...initiate aspirin could be a complex decision for patients and their healthcare providers, as both the potential benefits and harms need to be considered.
We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy. We recruited 15 people with Lynch syndrome, and 23 healthcare providers across multiple professions in primary, and specialist care (e.g. clinical genetics) in the United Kingdom. Interview schedules were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.
There were three themes: 1) Considering potential harms and benefits; 2) Healthcare pathway; 3) Patients' level of interest in aspirin. All healthcare providers, across primary and specialist care, viewed general practitioners (GPs) as being responsible for prescribing and overseeing the use of aspirin. However, GPs were unfamiliar with aspirin for preventive therapy, and concerned about prescribing at higher doses (300-600 mg). To support decision-making, GPs wanted clarification from specialist clinicians on the evidence and dose to prescribe. Not all participants with Lynch syndrome received information on aspirin from their healthcare provider, and several were unsure who to discuss aspirin with. GPs were more inclined to prescribe aspirin for patients with expressed preferences for the medication, however several patients were uncertain and wanted further guidance.
Coordinated and multilevel strategies are needed, addressing the needs of both GPs and people with Lynch syndrome, to ensure consistent implementation of national guidance on aspirin for preventive therapy.
High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions ...with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy.
Breast cancer is a diverse and varied disease. Recent research has shown that the collection of multiple biopsies before surgery can help researchers determine how the cancer is responding to ...treatment and can predict for long-term outcomes. However biopsies can be uncomfortable, and sometimes clinicians and research teams in hospitals may be reluctant to offer clinical trials requiring several biopsies to patients who have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) oversees a large number of breast cancer clinical trials where multiple biopsies are required. ICR-CTSU recognises that patient advocates (patients who have previously had, or cared for someone with, cancer) are key members of the trial design group and should be involved in the clinical trial throughout its lifespan. Patient advocates can provide reassurance regarding the acceptability of trial designs involving multiple biopsies from a patient perspective. This paper summarises patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU breast cancer trials activity and how this has benefited our research.
The importance of collecting tissue samples in breast cancer has become increasingly recognised, as the diversity of the disease has become better known. It has been documented in recent research that tumours may change in response to treatment prior to surgery (the neoadjuvant treatment setting). The collection of sequential biopsies over time can identify changes within tumours and potentially predict how the tumour may respond to certain treatments. However, the acceptability of multiple biopsies amongst patients, clinicians and other research staff in hospitals is variable and recruitment into clinical trials requiring multiple biopsies may be challenging.The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is responsible for a portfolio of breast cancer trials where multiple biopsies are key to the trial design. Patient advocate involvement has been essential in helping us to design and deliver complex and innovative cancer trials which require multiple invasive tissue biopsies, often without any direct benefit to the trial participants. The views expressed by patient advocates involved in ICR-CTSU trials supports the published evidence that patients are willing to donate additional tissue for research and that clinicians' concerns about approaching patients for trials involving multiple biopsies are often unfounded.Patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU trials activity takes various forms, from membership on protocol development groups and trial management groups, attendance at focus groups and forums, and presentations at trial development and launch meetings. This involvement has provided reassurance to research teams within the NHS and research ethics committees of the importance and acceptability of our trials from a patient perspective. Patient advocate involvement throughout the lifetime of our trials ensures that the patient remains central to our research considerations.
Randomised controlled trials comparing implant based breast reconstruction with and without mesh Study Sample size Intervention Comparison Outcomes assessed Main findings Quality of evidence* ...Uncertainty McCarthy et al, 2012 69 2 stage expander-implant reconstruction with human ADM (AlloDerm) n=33 Standard 2 stage expander-implant reconstruction n=36 1. Pooled analysis suggested a higher rate of infection in the mesh assisted group (risk ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.05) but no other important difference in complications; however, the quality of the included studies was low. 9 Data on health related quality of life and oncological outcomes were lacking. 15 Since the completion of these reviews, a multicentre Dutch randomised controlled study (142 women) comparing single stage direct-to-implant IBBR with acellular dermal matrix and traditional two stage expander-implant reconstruction has reported 11 safety data at one year ( table 1 ). In light of the lack of evidence and recent issues with other mesh based procedures, 21 surgeons and specialist nurses involved in decision making for breast reconstruction should ensure that patients are fully informed that there is limited short and long term safety and patient reported outcome data for mesh assisted IBBR, and that surgeons may have limited experience with the technique. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommends that mesh use should be considered on a per patient basis. 22 Careful patient selection and performing mesh assisted IBBR with caution in high risk groups (such as current smokers, patients who have had previous breast radiotherapy, and those with a high BMI) is recommended by the UK professional associations, the Association of Breast Surgery, and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, 23 together with a robust prospective audit of surgical outcomes to generate data to support practice.
Abstract Purpose To use robust consensus methods with individuals with lived breast cancer experience to agree the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients ...undergoing breast cancer surgery in the UK. Methods Research uncertainties related to information and support for breast cancer surgery submitted by patients and carers were analysed thematically to generate summary questions for inclusion in an online Delphi survey. Individuals with lived breast cancer experience completed two Delphi rounds including feedback in which they selected their top 10 research priorities from the list provided. The most highly ranked priorities from the survey were discussed at an in-person prioritisation workshop at which the final top 10 was agreed. Results The 543 uncertainties submitted by 156 patients/carers were categorised into 63 summary questions for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Of the 237 individuals completing Round 1, 190 (80.2%) participated in Round 2. The top 25 survey questions were carried forward for discussion at the in-person prioritisation workshop at which 17 participants from across the UK agreed the final top 10 research priorities. Key themes included ensuring patients were fully informed about all treatment options and given balanced, tailored information to support informed decision-making and empower their recovery. Equity of access to treatments including contralateral mastectomy for symmetry was also considered a research priority. Conclusion This process has identified the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Work is now needed to develop studies to address these important questions.
PDF
