No abstract

This study is the first large prospective RCT of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) compared with standard axillary treatment (level I-III axillary lymph node dissection or four node sampling), which includes comprehensive and repeated quality of life (QOL) assessments over 18 months. Patients (n = 829) completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B+4) and the Spielberger State/Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) at baseline (pre-surgery) and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months post-surgery. There were significant differences between treatment groups favouring the SNB group throughout the 18 months assessment. Patients in the standard treatment group showed a greater decline in Trial Outcome Index (TOI) scores (physical well-being, functional well-being and breast cancer concerns subscales in FACT-B+4) and recovered more slowly than patients in the SNB group (p < 0.01). The change in total FACT-B+4 scores (measuring global QOL) closely resembled the TOI results. 18 months post-surgery approximately twice as many patients in the standard group compared with the SNB group reported substantial arm swelling (14% versus 7%) (p = 0.002) or numbness (19% versus 8.7%) (p < 0.001). Despite the uncertainty about undergoing a relatively new procedure and the possible need for further surgery, there was no evidence of increased anxiety amongst patients randomised to SNB (p > 0.05). For 6 months post-surgery younger patients reported less favourable QOL scores (p < 0.001) and greater levels of anxiety (p < 0.01). In view of the benefits regarding arm functioning and quality of life, the data from this randomised study support the use of SNB in patients with clinically node negative breast cancer.

Background In England emergency hospital admissions among children are increasing and the under 25s are the most frequent attenders of A&E departments. Children of lower socio-economic status (SES) have poorer health outcomes and higher hospital admission rates. NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are increasingly being used for research but lack detailed data on individual characteristics such as SES. We report the results of an Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) study that linked the data of 3,189 consenting participants to HES. We describe rates of hospital admission, emergency readmissions, and A&E attendances and examine socio-demographic correlates of these. Methods Subjects were singletons and twins enrolled in ALSPAC who had provided consent for linkage to their health records by the study cut-off date (31.02.12). Linkage was carried out by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (now NHS Digital). We examined rates of admissions between birth and age 20 and A&E attendances between 14 and 20 years. Socio-demographic information collected in ALSPAC questionnaires during pregnancy were used to examine factors associated with admissions, emergency readmissions (an emergency admission within 30 days of discharge) and A&E attendances. Results Excluding birth records, we found at least one admission for 1,792/3,189 (56.2%) participants and 4,305 admissions in total. Admission rates were highest in the first year of life. Among males, admissions declined until about age 5 and then remained relatively stable; conversely, among females, they increased sharply from the age of 15. ICD 10 chapters for diseases of the digestive system and injury and poisoning accounted for the largest proportions of admissions (15.8 and 14.5%, respectively). Tooth decay was the highest single cause of admission for those aged 5–9 years. Overall, 1,518/3,189 (47.6%) of participants attended A&E at least once, with a total of 3,613 attendances between age 14 and 20 years. Individuals from more deprived backgrounds had higher rates of admissions, readmissions and A&E attendances. Conclusions Linkage between cohort studies such as ALSPAC and HES data provides unique opportunities for detailed insights into socio-demographic and other determinants of hospital activity, which can inform secondary care demand management in the NHS. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3922-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionBreast reconstruction (BR) is offered to improve quality of life for women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. As most women will be long-term breast cancer survivors, high-quality information regarding the long-term outcomes of different BR procedures is essential to support informed decision-making. As different techniques vary considerably in cost, policymakers also require high-quality cost-effectiveness evidence to inform care. The Brighter study aims to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of implant-based and autologous BR and use health economic modelling to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of different reconstructive techniques.Methods and analysisWomen undergoing mastectomy and/or BR following a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1 January 2008 and 31 March 2009 will be identified from hospital episode statistics (HES). Surviving women will be contacted and invited to complete validated PRO measures including the BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A, or opt out of having their data included in the HES analysis. Long-term clinical outcomes will be explored using HES data. The primary outcome will be rates of revisional surgery between implant-based and autologous procedures. Secondary outcomes will include rates of secondary reconstruction and reconstruction failure. The long-term PROs of implant-based and autologous reconstruction will be compared using BREAST-Q, EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A scores. Multivariable regression will be used to examine the relationship between long-term outcomes, patient comorbidities, sociodemographic and treatment factors. A Markov model will be developed using HES and PRO data and published literature to compare the relative long-term cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous BR.Ethics and disseminationThe Brighter study has been approved by the South-West -Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee (20/SW/0020), and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (20/CAG/0021). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national meetings. We will work with the professional associations, charities and patient groups to disseminate the results.