We report the outcomes of the European prospective study on prepectoral breast reconstruction using preshaped acellular dermal matrix for complete breast implant coverage. Seventy-nine patients were enrolled between April 2014 and August 2015 all over Europe using a single protocol for patient selection and surgical procedure, according to the Association of Breast Surgery and British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons joint guidelines for the use of acellular dermal matrix in breast surgery. The preshaped matrix completely wraps the breast implant, which is placed above the pectoralis major, without detaching the muscle. A total of 100 prepectoral breast reconstructions with complete implant coverage were performed. This series, with mean follow-up of 17.9 months, had two cases of implant loss (2.0%) including one necrosis of the nipple and one wound breakdown (1.0% respectively). No implant rotations were observed. Good cosmetic outcomes were obtained with natural movement of the breasts and softness to the touch; none of the patients reported experiencing pain or reduction in the movements of the pectoralis major muscle postoperatively. The use of preshaped acellular dermal matrix for a complete breast implant coverage in selected patients is safe and gives satisfactory results, both from the aesthetic view point and the low postoperative complication rates. Further studies reporting long-term outcomes are planned.

Objective To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. Design Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Setting 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. Participants 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). Interventions Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. Main outcome measures Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. Results Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale −0.68, −1.23 to −0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) −2.02, −3.11 to −0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average −£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval −£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. Conclusions The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

Ecancermedicalscience is the peer-reviewed open access cancer journal founded by the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. We consider articles on all aspects of research relating to cancer, including molecular biology, genetics, pathophysiology, epide

Background: Upper limb problems are common after breast cancer treatment. Objectives: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise programme compared with usual care on upper limb function, health-related outcomes and costs in women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Design: This was a two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative research, process evaluation and parallel economic analysis; the unit of randomisation was the individual (allocated ratio 1 : 1). Setting: Breast cancer centres, secondary care. Participants: Women aged ≥ 18 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems. Women were screened to identify their risk status. Interventions: All participants received usual-care information leaflets. Those randomised to exercise were referred to physiotherapy for an early, structured exercise programme (three to six face-to-face appointments that included strengthening, physical activity and behavioural change strategies). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months as assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were function (Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire subscales), pain, complications (e.g. wound-related complications, lymphoedema), health-related quality of life (e.g. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form questionnaire-12 items), physical activity and health service resource use. The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit gained from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group assignment, but data collectors were blinded. Results: Between 2016 and 2017, we randomised 392 participants from 17 breast cancer centres across England: 196 (50%) to the usual-care group and 196 (50%) to the exercise group. Ten participants (10/392; 3%) were withdrawn at randomisation and 32 (8%) did not provide complete baseline data. A total of 175 participants (89%) from each treatment group provided baseline data. Participants’ mean age was 58.1 years (standard deviation 12.1 years; range 28–88 years). Most participants had undergone axillary node clearance surgery (327/392; 83%) and 317 (81%) had received radiotherapy. Uptake of the exercise treatment was high, with 181 out of 196 (92%) participants attending at least one physiotherapy appointment. Compliance with exercise was good: 143 out of 196 (73%) participants completed three or more physiotherapy sessions. At 12 months, 274 out of 392 (70%) participants returned questionnaires. Improvement in arm function was greater in the exercise group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 16.3 (standard deviation 17.6)] than in the usual-care group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 23.7 (standard deviation 22.9)] at 12 months for intention-to-treat (adjusted mean difference Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of –7.81, 95% confidence interval –12.44 to –3.17; p = 0.001) and complier-average causal effect analyses (adjusted mean difference –8.74, 95% confidence interval –13.71 to –3.77; p ≤ 0.001). At 12 months, pain scores were lower and physical health-related quality of life was higher in the exercise group than in the usual-care group (Short Form questionnaire-12 items, mean difference 4.39, 95% confidence interval 1.74 to 7.04; p = 0.001). We found no differences in the rate of adverse events or lymphoedema over 12 months. The qualitative findings suggested that women found the exercise programme beneficial and enjoyable. Exercise accrued lower costs (–£387, 95% CI –£2491 to £1718) and generated more quality-adjusted life years (0.029, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.056) than usual care over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that exercise was more cost-effective and that the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Exercise was relatively cheap to implement (£129 per participant) and associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Benefits may accrue beyond the end of the trial. Limitations: Postal follow-up was lower than estimated; however, the study was adequately powered. No serious adverse events directly related to the intervention were reported. Conclusions: This trial provided robust evidence that referral for early, supported exercise after breast cancer surgery improved shoulder function in those at risk of shoulder problems and was associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Future work: Future work should focus on the implementation of exercise programmes in clinical practice for those at highest risk of shoulder problems. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN35358984. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Breast cancer care has seen tremendous advancements in recent years through various innovations to improve early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and survival. These innovations include advancements in imaging techniques, minimally invasive surgical techniques, targeted therapies and personalized medicine, radiation therapy, and multidisciplinary care. It is essential to recognize that challenges and limitations exist while significant advancements in breast cancer care exist. Continued research, advocacy, and efforts to address these challenges are necessary to make these innovations accessible to all patients while carefully considering and managing the ethical, social, and practical implications.