Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Bridging pre-surgical endocrine therapy for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the B-MaP-C study

Purpose: The B-MaP-C study investigated changes to breast cancer care that were necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we present a follow-up analysis of those patients commenced on bridging endocrine therapy (BrET), whilst they were awaiting surgery due to reprioritisation of resources. Methods: This multicentre, multinational cohort study recruited 6045 patients from the UK, Spain and Portugal during the peak pandemic period (Feb–July 2020). Patients on BrET were followed up to investigate the duration of, and response to, BrET. This included changes in tumour size to reflect downstaging potential, and changes in cellular proliferation (Ki67), as a marker of prognosis. Results: 1094 patients were prescribed BrET, over a median period of 53 days (IQR 32–81 days). The majority of patients (95.6%) had strong ER expression (Allred score 7–8/8). Very few patients required expedited surgery, due to lack of response (1.2%) or due to lack of tolerance/compliance (0.8%). There were small reductions in median tumour size after 3 months’ treatment duration; median of 4 mm [IQR − 20, 4]. In a small subset of patients ( n = 47), a drop in cellular proliferation (Ki67) occurred in 26 patients (55%), from high (Ki67 ≥ 10%) to low (< 10%), with at least one month’s duration of BrET. Discussion: This study describes real-world usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy as necessitated by the pandemic. BrET was found to be tolerable and safe. The data support short-term (≤ 3 months) usage of pre-operative endocrine therapy. Longer-term use should be investigated in future trials

Improvement in coronary anastomosis with cardiac surgery simulation

ObjectiveCardiac surgery trainees might benefit from simulation training in coronary anastomosis and more advanced procedures. We evaluated distributed practice using a portable task station and experience on a beating-heart model in training coronary anastomosis.MethodsEight cardiothoracic surgery residents performed 2 end-to-side anastomoses with the task station, followed by 2 end-to-side anastomoses to the left anterior descending artery by using the beating-heart model at 70 beats/min. Residents took home the task station, recording practice times. At 1 week, residents performed 2 anastomoses on the task station and 2 anastomoses on the beating-heart model. Performances of the anastomosis were timed and reviewed.ResultsTimes to completion for anastomosis on the task station decreased 20% after 1 week of practice (351 ± 111 to 281 ± 53 seconds, P = .07), with 2 residents showing no improvement. Times to completion for beating-heart anastomosis decreased 15% at 1 week (426 ± 115 to 362 ± 94 seconds, P = .03), with 2 residents demonstrating no improvement. Home practice time (90–540 minutes) did not correlate with the degree of improvement. Performance rating scores showed an improvement in all components. Eighty-eight percent of residents agreed that the task station is a good method of training, and 100% agreed that the beating-heart model is a good method of training.ConclusionsIn general, distributed practice with the task station resulted in improvement in the ability to perform an anastomosis, as assessed by times to completion and performance ratings, not only with the task station but also with the beating-heart model. Not all residents improved, which is consistent with a “ceiling effect” with the simulator and a “plateau effect” with the trainee. Simulation can be useful in preparing residents for coronary anastomosis and can provide an opportunity to identify the need and methods for remediation