Toni Zhong

Objectives International guidelines on breast cancer (BC) screening have differing recommendations leading to uncertainty on best practices for primary care providers. The purpose of this study was to create a Canadian best practices document on BC health and screening for primary healthcare providers through multidisciplinary consensus using Nominal Group Technique and Delphi method. Participants A 9-member multidisciplinary expert group and a patient advocate participated in the consensus methods and voting. Experts included those involved in BC management and two primary care physicians. Twenty-nine experts across BC disciplines participated in external review. Primary and secondary outcomes Two study objectives included (1) building consensus on key ‘best practice’ behaviours related to BC-related health and screening and (2) building consensus on specific definitions related to BC screening. Results The final consensus document consists of 65 statements grouped in five categories with companion resources to support uptake of all best practices. Categories include identification and work-up for diagnostic imaging, risk factors and identifying individuals eligible for high-risk screening, shared decision-making, decisions and referrals for BC screening and screening outcomes. Special areas of focus were shared decision-making, age to initiate screening, and BC screening in special populations. Conclusions We created a comprehensive consensus document distilling the latest evidence to provide practical Canadian consensus-based advice on specific ‘best practice behaviours’ related to BC health and screening to serve as a resource for providers.

Several postmastectomy breast reconstruction techniques and procedures have been implemented, although with limited evaluation of benefits and adverse effects. We conducted a systematic review on the plane and timing of reconstruction, and on the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy, acellular dermal matrix, and autologous fat grafting as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). Both immediate and delayed reconstruction may be considered, with preferred timing depending on factors such as patient preferences, type of mastectomy, skin perfusion, comorbidities, pre-mastectomy breast size, and desired reconstructive breast size. Immediate reconstruction may provide greater psychological or quality of life benefits. In patients who are candidates for skin-sparing mastectomy and without clinical, radiological, and pathological indications of nipple-areolar complex involvement, nipple-sparing mastectomy is recommended provided it is technically feasible and acceptable aesthetic results can be achieved. Surgical factors including incision location are important to reduce necrosis by preserving blood supply and to minimize nerve damage. There is a role for both prepectoral and subpectoral implants; risks and benefits will vary, and decisions should be made during consultation between the patient and surgeons. In patients who are suitable candidates for implant reconstruction and have adequate mastectomy flap thickness and vascularity, prepectoral implants should be considered. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has led to an increased use of prepectoral reconstruction. ADM should not be used in case of poor mastectomy flap perfusion/ischemia that would otherwise be considered unsuitable for prepectoral reconstruction. Care should be taken in the selection and handling of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to minimize risks of infection and seroma. Limited data from small studies suggest that prepectoral reconstruction without ADM may be feasible in some patients. Autologous fat grafting is recommended as a treatment for contour irregularities, rippling following implant-based reconstruction, and to improve tissue quality of the mastectomy flap after radiotherapy.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery for patients with breast cancer. eHealth solutions enable remote care and may improve patient activation, which is defined as having the knowledge, skills and confidence to manage one’s health. Thus, we developed the Breast Cancer Treatment Application (app) for patients and practitioners to use throughout the cancer care continuum. The app facilitates virtual assistance, delivers educational resources, collects patient-reported outcome measures and provides individualised support via volunteer e-coaches. Among newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer, we will compare changes in patient activation, other patient-reported outcomes and health service outcomes over 1 year between those using the app and Fitbit, and those receiving standard care and Fitbit only. Methods and analysis This randomised controlled trial will include 200 patients with breast cancer seen at a tertiary care cancer centre in Ontario, Canada. The intervention group (n=100) will use the app in addition to standard care and Fitbit for 13 months following diagnosis. The control group (n=100) will receive standard care and Fitbit only. Patients will complete questionnaires at enrolment, 6 and 12 months post-diagnosis to measure patient activation (Patient Activation Measure-13 score), distress, anxiety, quality of life and experiences with their care and information received. All patients will also receive Fitbits to measure activity and heart rate. We will also measure wait times and number of visits to ambulatory care services to understand the impact of the app on the use of in-person services. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained on 6 January 2023. Protocol version 2.0 was approved on 6 January 2023. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Study findings will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with participants, patient programmes and cancer awareness groups. The app has also been approved as a secure communication method at our trial institution, thus we are well-positioned to support future integration of the app into standard care through collaboration with our hospital network. Trial registration number NCT05989477.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy improves the quality of life for many patients with breast cancer. There is uncertainty regarding eligibility criteria for reconstruction, timing (immediate or delayed—with or without radiotherapy), outcomes of nipple-sparing compared to skin-sparing mastectomy, selection criteria and surgical factors influencing outcomes of nipple-sparing mastectomy, prepectoral versus subpectoral implants, use of acellular dermal matrix, and use of autologous fat grafting. We conducted a systematic review of these topics to be used as the evidence base for an updated clinical practice guideline on breast reconstruction for Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023409083. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until August 2024, and 229 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective non-randomized comparative studies; 5 randomized controlled trials were included. Results suggest nipple-sparing mastectomy is oncologically safe, provided there is no clinical, radiological, or pathological indication of nipple-areolar complex involvement. Surgical factors, including incision location, may affect rates of complications such as necrosis. Both immediate and delayed reconstruction have similar long-term outcomes; however, immediate reconstruction may result in better short to medium-term quality of life. Evidence on whether radiotherapy should modify the timing of initial reconstruction or expander-implant exchange was very limited; studies delayed reconstruction after radiotherapy by at least 3 months and, more commonly, at least 6 months to avoid the period of acute radiation injury. Radiation after immediate reconstruction is a reasonable option. Surgical complications are similar between prepectoral and dual-plane or subpectoral reconstruction; prepectoral placement may give a better quality of life due to lower rates of long-term complications such as pain and animation deformity. Autologous fat grafting was found to be oncologically safe; its use may improve quality of life and aesthetic results.

Purpose: The BREAST-Q is the most used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in breast cancer surgery. The purposes of this study were to re-examine the content validity of BREAST-Q cancer modules (mastectomy, lumpectomy and reconstruction) and to determine the need for new scales. Methods: Interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer (Stage 0–4, any treatment), and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive (based on original BREAST-Q conceptual framework) and inductive (new codes from the data) content analysis approaches were used to analyze the data. The number of codes that mapped to BREAST-Q were recorded. Results: Dataset included 3948 codes from 58 participants. Most of the breast (n = 659, 96%) and all psychosocial (n = 127, 100%), sexual (n = 179, 100%) and radiation-related (n = 79, 100%) codes mapped to BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breast, Psychosocial Wellbeing, Sexual Wellbeing and Adverse Effects of Radiation scales, respectively. For the physical wellbeing codes (n = 939) for breast/chest and arm, 34% (n = 321) mapped to the Physical Wellbeing-Chest scale. Most of the abdomen codes (n = 311) mapped to Satisfaction with Abdomen (n = 90, 76%) and Physical Wellbeing-Abdomen (n = 171, 89%) scales. Codes that did not map (n = 697, 30%) covered breast sensation and lymphedema. Concerns related to fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were most reported and did not map to BREAST-Q. Conclusion: The BREAST-Q, which was developed using extensive patient input more than a decade ago, is still relevant. To ensure the BREAST-Q remains comprehensive, new scales for upper extremity lymphedema, breast sensation, fatigue, cancer worry, and work impact were developed.

An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as a PDF only.

Background Major improvements in breast cancer treatment in the last decade include advancements in postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). Unfortunately, the studies in PMBR are primarily researcher or industry led with minimal input from patients and caregivers. The aim of this study is to use the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to bring together the patients, caregivers and clinicians in a priority setting partnership to identify the most important unanswered research questions in PMBR. Methods The JLA priority setting methodology involved four key stages: gathering research questions on PMBR from patients, caregivers and clinicians; checking these research questions against existing evidence; interim prioritisation and a final consensus meeting to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions using the modified nominal group methodology. Results In stage 1, 3168 research questions were submitted from 713 respondents across Canada, of which 73% of the participants were patients or caregivers. Stage 2 confirmed that there were a total of 48 unique unanswered questions. In stage three, 488 individuals completed the interim prioritisation survey and the top 25 questions were taken to a final consensus meeting. In the final stage, the top 10 unanswered research questions were determined. They cover a breadth of topics including personalised surgical treatment, safety of implants and newer techniques, access to PMBR, breast cancer recurrence and rehabilitation. Interpretation Identification of the top 10 unanswered research questions is an important first step to generating relevant and impactful research that will ultimately improve the PMBR experience for patients with breast cancer.

The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure for women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to develop new BREAST-Q scales to measure Cancer

Reconstructive techniques for restoring sensation to the breast after mastectomy continue to evolve. The BREAST-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure tha