Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213038›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2023

Current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery in the UK: results of the ANTHEM national practice questionnaire.

Charlotte Davies, Lisa Whisker, Joanna Skillman, Douglas Macmillan, Christopher Holcombe, Patricia Fairbrother, Shelley Potter, ANTHEM Study Steering Group

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A clinical perspective on oncoplastic breast conserving surgery.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte DaviesBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Charlotte.Davies@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3468-4258
Lisa WhiskerNottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Joanna SkillmanDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Douglas MacmillanNottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Christopher HolcombeLinda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
Patricia FairbrotherIndependent Cancer Patients Voice (ICPV), Bristol, UK.
Shelley PotterBristol Breast Care Centre, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury-On-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
ANTHEM Study Steering Group
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBThe Patients Association · GBAt Bristol · GBRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Above and Beyond ABL-2019-20-02ABS ABL-2019-20-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS) may be a better option than mastectomy ± immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) for women with breast cancer but studies directly comparing the techniques are lacking. We surveyed UK breast units to determine the current practice of OPBCS to inform the design of a future comparative study.

methodsAn electronic survey was developed to explore the current practice of OPBCS. This included the local availability of volume displacement and/or replacement techniques; number of cases performed; contraindications and approach to contralateral symmetrisation. Summary data for each survey item were calculated and overall provision of care examined.

results58 UK centres completed the survey, including 43 (74%) stand-alone breast and 15 (26%) combined breast/plastics units. Over 40% of units (n = 24) treated more than 500 cancers/year. Most units offered volume displacement techniques (TMs) (97%). Over two-thirds (n = 39. 67%) of units offered local perforator flaps (LPF). Approximately a half of units (10/19) not performing LPF were planning to introduce them in the next 12-24 months. A third (n = 19, 33%) of units routinely performed simultaneous contralateral symmetrisation mostly with two-surgeon operating. There were limited oncological restrictions to OPBCS with no contraindications for multifocal cancers in most centres; 65% of units (36/55) offered OPBCS for multicentric disease. Extensive DCIS was a contraindication in a minority of units.

conclusionsOPBCS is widely available in the UK but contraindications and approaches to contralateral symmetrisation were variable. Work is now needed to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of OPBCS vs mastectomy ± IBR to support informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyPerforator FlapFemaleHumansMastectomyMastectomy, SegmentalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomImmediate breast reconstructionLocal perforator flapsMastectomyOncoplastic breast-conserving surgeryTherapeutic mammaplasty

Identifiers

PMID37213038
PMCPMC10201489
OpenAlexW4377220919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.