Introduction Breast cancer remains the most common cancer diagnosis in the UK. The current clinical practice utilises two different types of modalities to estimate the prognosis, risk of recurrence and benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with early breast cancer. The first set of modalities includes risk calculators based on clinicopathological features, e.g. PREDICT or the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI); the second includes genetic profiling of tumour tissue using Oncotype DX (ODX; Genomic Health, Redwood City, CA) testing. PREDICT, NPI and ODX stratify breast cancers into high-, intermediate- and low-risk categories to help guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. This study compares PREDICT, NPI and ODX Recurrence Scores (RS), with the aim of assessing 1) the correlation between the RS for PREDICT, NPI and ODX and 2) whether early breast cancer patients are stratified into similar risk categories by all three modalities. Methods This retrospective study included early breast cancer patients treated at a National Health Service (NHS) hospital over a 12-month period (October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018). Inclusion criteria: consecutive patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and lymph node-negative breast cancer. All patients were discussed at the local multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and underwent ODX testing. Exclusion criteria: patients without ODX test scores; patients with an in-breast recurrence; patients who did not undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB); and patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) only. NPI and PREDICT scores were calculated for each patient using online tools, and ODX data was obtained through Genomic Health and MDT records. Patients were risk-stratified into high, intermediate and low risk of recurrence groups based on their PREDICT, NPI and ODX scores. The thresholds for risk stratification were based on current practice, which is evidence-based. Correlations between PREDICT, NPI and ODX scores were analysed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results Forty-six patients (mean age: 56 years), with a total of 57 early breast cancers, underwent ODX testing. Risk categories generated by PREDICT very strongly correlated with NPI for all patients (r=0.92; P<0.0001). However, the RS generated by ODX testing only strongly correlated for patients with low-risk PREDICT scores (r=0.51; P=0.0134), while no correlation between RS and PREDICT was observed for patients with intermediate- or high-risk PREDICT scores (r=-0.0064; P=0.9767). Similar results were seen between NPI and RS. Overall, only 19/46 (41.3%) patients had an RS which corresponded to PREDICT risk category, while 18/46 (39.1%) patients had an RS that indicated a higher risk of recurrence than PREDICT, and 9/46 (19.6%) patients had an RS indicating a lower risk of recurrence than PREDICT. Similar results were found when comparing RS and NPI. Conclusion The risk of recurrence estimated by ODX in patients deemed low risk by PREDICT or NPI highly correlated, while no such correlation existed in patients with an estimated intermediate- or high-risk breast cancer. In PREDICT- or NPI-estimated intermediate- and high-risk patients, ODX provided valuable additional prognostic information to guide adjuvant treatment, while the potential avoidance of ODX testing in low-risk patients presents significant cost-savings.
Background: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly employed procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of sub-pectoral versus pre-pectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral IBR. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent sub-pectoral or pre-pectoral IBR between 2015-2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary end-point was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year. Results: A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (sub-pectoral n=128 in 74 patients, pre-pectoral n=143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the sub-pectoral group (36.5% vs 19%; P=0.014) although through longer follow-up. The commonest procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange (11.7% vs 3.5%, P=0.010; 11.7% vs 4.2%, P=0.021) while fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% vs 40.5%, P=0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the sub-pectoral versus the pre-pectoral groups, (21% vs 16% respectively, P=0.288) at 1 year. Conclusion: The requirement for secondary procedures at one year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following pre-pectoral IBR.
Half of those recently surveyed by the BMA (43%) said that they were currently experiencing work related depression, anxiety, stress, burnout, emotional distress, or other mental health condition and that it was worse than it had been before the pandemic.1 Indeed, the recent General Medical Council survey of doctors in …
Abstract Background Evidence-based interventions may reduce mortality in surgical patients. This study documented the prevalence of sepsis, adherence to guidelines in its management, and timing of source control in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency. Methods Patients aged 16 years or more presenting with emergency general surgery problems were identified over a 7-day period and then screened for sepsis compliance (using the Sepsis Six standards, devised for severe sepsis) and the timing of source control (whether radiological or surgical). Exploratory analyses examined associations between the mode (emergency department or general practitioner) and time of admission, adherence to the sepsis guidelines, and outcomes (complications or death within 30 days). Results Of a total of 5067 patients from 97 hospitals across the UK, 911 (18·0 per cent) fulfilled the criteria for sepsis, 165 (3·3 per cent) for severe sepsis and 24 (0·5 per cent) for septic shock. Timely delivery of all Sepsis Six guidelines for patients with severe sepsis was achieved in four patients. For patients with severe sepsis, 17·6–94·5 per cent of individual guidelines within the Sepsis Six were delivered. Oxygen was the criterion most likely to be missed, followed by blood cultures in all sepsis severity categories. Surgery for source control occurred a median of 19·8 (i.q.r. 10·0–35·4) h after diagnosis. Omission of Sepsis Six parameters did not appear to be associated with an increase in morbidity or mortality. Conclusion Although sepsis was common in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency, adherence to severe sepsis guidelines was incomplete in the majority. Despite this, no evidence of harm was apparent.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)