Search

Background: People with a stoma are reported to experience leakage, which negatively impacts patient quality of life (QoL). Aim: To assess the impact of leakage experienced by individuals with a stoma in the UK. Methods: Data were analysed from 301 patients living in the UK who completed a questionnaire concerning the physical and psychosocial impact of living with a stoma. Findings: Most respondents had had their stoma for more than 5 years. Nine out of 10 worried about leakage to varying degrees and half the respondents accepted that this was a worry they had to live with. Almost 70% experienced leakage onto clothes within the preceding year, and 28% experienced this monthly. Peristomal skin complications were experienced by 82% of respondents, the severity of which correlated with reductions in QoL. Conclusion: Despite the consequential negative impact of leakage on QoL, individuals are not seeking advice to resolve leakage-related issues, including from their specialist stoma care nurse.

Introduction Symptomatic presentations account for the majority of invasive breast cancer diagnoses. While the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme is subjected to strict quality control, no such system for performance monitoring exists in the symptomatic clinic. We assess the sensitivity of cancer detection and missed cancer rate for symptomatic breast patients to benchmark future outcome measures. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients attending the symptomatic breast clinic between October 2013 and October 2018 was performed. Patients with new cancer diagnoses were identified and screened for those who had presented to the department within the 3 years prior to their diagnosis. From this, the sensitivity and missed cancer rate were calculated. Results About 40 323 patients were seen over the 5-year study period. About 2155 new cancers were diagnosed, with 2033 identified at their initial clinic attendance. A further 122 patients had cancer diagnosed on a subsequent appointment, of which 23 patients were considered to have had a delay in diagnosis. The sensitivity of the one-stop symptomatic breast clinic was therefore 99.0%, and the missed cancer rate was 0.06% over 5 years. Conclusion The missed cancer rate reported in this study is favorable compared to the outcomes reported in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and superior to the only other study reporting outcomes on a much smaller cohort. The unit in question therefore is performing exceptionally against current standards and sets a benchmark against which future performance can be measured.

In 2011, a guidance was issued by the National Health Service (NHS) Improvement a model on how mastectomy could be offered in the day-case setting. The goal of this guidance was to reduce inpatient bed days and cost to the NHS, and demonstrate that it can be performed within an acceptable safety profile. The aim of this study was to assess whether patients find the day-case pathway for mastectomy an acceptable management model. We compared complication rates between the day-case and inpatient delivery model.This study was a retrospective analysis of patients' experience undergoing day-case (n=26) and inpatient mastectomy (n=60). The primary outcome measure was based on a telephone interview using a validated, standardised questionnaire.No statistically significant difference in the satisfaction levels between the two groups (raw scores 6.76 day-case vs. 6.15 inpatient, p=0.37) was demonstrated. We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups when specifically analysing whether patients found the first night harder as a day-case or inpatient (3.192 vs. 2.80, p=0.59, range 0-10). Our overall complications were 11.4% (day-case) and 18.3% (inpatients). Rates were comparable between the two groups and equivalent to published rates in the literature.There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction scores between patients who had a mastectomy as an inpatient versus those who had their operation as a day-case procedure. In addition, there were no significant differences in the complication rates between the two groups. We conclude then that it is feasible and safe to offer day-case mastectomy, with no loss in patient satisfaction.

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante.Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

Recommendations for mastectomy by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) may contribute to variation in mastectomy rates. The primary aim of this multicentre prospective observational study was to describe current practice in MDT decision-making for recommending mastectomy. A secondary aim was to determine factors contributing to variation in mastectomy rates.Consecutive patients undergoing mastectomy between 1 June 2015 and 29 February 2016 at participating units across the UK were recruited. Details of neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST), operative and oncological data, and rationale for recommending mastectomy by MDTs were collected.Overall, 1776 women with breast cancer underwent 1823 mastectomies at 68 units. Mastectomy was advised by MDTs for 1402 (76·9 per cent) of these lesions. The most common reasons for advising mastectomy were large tumour to breast size ratio (530 women, 29·1 per cent) and multicentric disease (372, 20·4 per cent). In total, 202 postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) unifocal tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 173 women (85·6 per cent). Seventy-five women aged less than 70 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) tumours were advised mastectomy and not offered NST, owing to large tumour to breast size ratio in 45 women (60 per cent).Most mastectomies are advised for large tumour to breast size ratio, but there is an inconsistency in the use of NST to downsize tumours in patients with large ER+ or HER2+ cancers. The application of standardized recommendations for NST could reduce the number of mastectomies advised by MDTs.Las recomendaciones para la mastectomía por equipos multidisciplinarios (multidisciplinary teams, MDTs) podrían contribuir a explicar la diferencia en las tasas de mastectomía. El objetivo primario de este estudio observacional prospectivo y multicéntrico fue describir la práctica actual en la toma de decisiones de los MDT para recomendar la mastectomía. El objetivo secundario fue determinar factores que contribuyen a la variación en las tasas de mastectomía. MÉTODOS: Se reclutaron pacientes consecutivas sometidas a mastectomía entre el 1 de junio de 2015 y el 29 de febrero de 2016 en las unidades participantes de todo el Reino Unido. Se recogieron datos del preoperatorio, tratamiento neoadyuvante sistémico (neoadjuvant systemic treatment, NST), quirúrgicos y oncológicos, así como la justificación de los MDT para recomendar la mastectomía.Un total de 1.776 pacientes fueron sometidas a 1.823 mastectomías en 68 unidades. La mastectomía fue recomendada por los MDTs en 1.402 (76,9%) de estas mujeres. Las razones más frecuentes para recomendar la mastectomía fueron la elevada proporción entre el tamaño del tumor y el de la mama (530; 29,1%) y la enfermedad multicéntrica (372; 20,4%). En total, a 202 mujeres postmenopáusicas con tumores unifocales positivos para receptores de estrógenos (ER+) se les recomendó la mastectomía y no se les ofreció NST; debido a una elevada proporción entre el tamaño del tumor y de la mama en 173 (86%) pacientes. A 75 mujeres de70 años con tumores positivos para el human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2+) se les recomendó la mastectomía y no se les ofreció NST; debido a una elevada proporción entre el tamaño del tumor y de la mama en 45 (60%) mujeres. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayoría de las mastectomías se recomendaron en casos con una elevada proporción entre el tamaño del tumor y el de la mama, pero existe una inconsistencia en la utilización de la NST para reducir el tamaño del tumor en pacientes con grandes cánceres ER+ o HER2+. La aplicación de recomendaciones estandarizadas para la NST podría reducir el número de mastectomía recomendadas por los MDT.

BACKGROUND Guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes universally recommend that adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity be offered individualized interventions to encourage weight loss. Yet despite the existing recommendations, provision of weight management services is currently patchy around the United Kingdom and where services are available, high attrition rates are often reported. In addition, individuals often fail to take up services, that is, after discussion with a general practitioner or practice nurse, individuals are referred to the service but do not attend for an appointment. Qualitative research has identified that the initial discussion raising the issue of weight, motivating the patient, and referring to services is crucial to a successful outcome from weight management. OBJECTIVE Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Internet-based training program and practice implementation toolkit with or without face-to-face training for primary care staff. The primary outcome is the change in referral rate of patients with type 2 diabetes to National Health Service adult weight management programs, 3 months pre- and postintervention. METHODS We used the Behavior Change Wheel to develop an intervention for staff in primary care consisting of a 1-hour Internet-based eLearning package covering the links between obesity, type 2 diabetes, and the benefits of weight management, the treatment of diabetes in patients with obesity, specific training in raising the issue of weight, local services and referral pathways, overview of weight management components/ evidence base, and the role of the referrer. The package also includes a patient pamphlet, a discussion tool, a practice implementation checklist, and an optional 2.5-hour face-to-face training session. We have randomly assigned 100 practices in a 1:1 ratio to either have immediate access to all the resources or have access delayed for 4 months. An intention-to-treat statistical analysis will be performed. RESULTS Recruitment to the study is now complete. We will finalize follow-up in 2018 and publish in early 2019. CONCLUSIONS This protocol describes the development and randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of an intervention to improve referral and uptake rates of weight management programs for adults with type 2 diabetes. At a time when many new dietary and pharmacological weight management interventions are showing large clinical benefits for people with type 2 diabetes, it is vital that primary care practitioners are willing, skilled, and able to discuss weight and make appropriate referrals to services. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03360058; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03360058 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74HI8ULfn) INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR1-10.2196/12162