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.
Nasogastric tubes (NGTs) have long been used for various indications, most commonly to decompress the stomach of its contents in intestinal obstruction or after abdominal surgery, to provide enteral feeding or to allow enteral liquid medication administration. Recently greater importance has been given to the correct placement NGTs to avoid serious complications. We present a case of a spontaneously knotted NGT that was identified and safely removed without complications, but which may have resulted from suboptimal placement. We discuss this case to raise awareness of this complication and how to minimize the likelihood of it happening and improve patient outcome.
Background
While arm lymphedema following breast cancer treatment is a common complication; breast lymphedema following treatment is not uncommon. Several risk factors were found to contribute to breast lymphedema, including axillary surgery, high BMI, increased bra cup size, adjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional and radiotherapy boost and upper outer quadrant tumours.
Aim
We aimed to provide an up to date systematic review to help avoiding or managing breast lymphoedema after Breast conservative surgery for breast cancer.
Methods
The search term 'breast lymphedema' was combined with 'breast conservative surgery' and was used to conduct a literature research in PubMed and Medline. The term lymphedema was combined with breast, conservative and surgery to search Embase database. All papers published in English were included with no exclusion date limits
Results
A total of 2155 female patients were included in this review; age ranged from 26 to 90. Mean body mass index was 28.4, most of the studies included patients who underwent conservative breast surgery.
Incidence of breast lymphedema ranged from 24.8% to 90.4%. Several risk factors were linked to breast lymphedema after conservative breast surgery, such as body mass index (BMI), breast size, tumour size, tumour site, type of surgery and adjuvant therapy.
Treatment options focused on decongestive lymphatic therapy, including Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), self-massaging, compression bras or Kinesio taping.
Conclusion
Breast lymphedema is a relatively common complication, yet there is no clear consensus on the definition or treatment options.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.