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.

No abstract

The highest failure rates of cemented hip replacement are in males under 50 years of age, usually from acetabular loosening and polyethylene wear. The metal-on-metal Birmingham Resurfacing offers potential advantages to this group because of its wear properties. It also has a low dislocation rate and consequently less restricted activity. The aim of this study was to compare early outcome in young patients, treated for osteoarthritis, either by the Birmingham Resurfacing or hybrid cemented stem with an uncemented cup and press-fit polyethylene liner. 54 patients in each arm were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and pre-operative activity. Outcome was measured by the Oxford Hip Score, with supplementary questions about sporting activity and manual work. 37% of hybrid hip replacements undertook sport or heavy manual work despite specific instruction to the contrary. The Birmingham Resurfacings scored significantly better than the hybrid hip replacements (Mean 3.4 points, 1.3–5.5, 95% Confidence Interval, p<0.05.). Age and duration of symptoms pre-operatively were associated with outcome in the resurfacing group. In the early stages there appears to be justification for using the Birmingham Resurfacing in active young patients. Only long-term follow-up will indicate whether metallosis and neck fracture are lesser complications than polyethylene wear and whether activity can be maintained.

Background: Her2 (c-erbB-2/neu) overexpression in breast carcinoma predicts response to the anti-Her2 monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab, and is associated with a poor prognosis. When considering patients for trastuzumab treatment, Her2 protein expression is measured by imunohistochemistry (IHC) and, where staining is equivocal, by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) detection of Her2 gene amplification. Aims: To compare IHC using CBE356 with IHC using the Food and Drug Administration approved HercepTest TM . Methods: CBE356 and HercepTest were analysed using 167 FISH characterised breast carcinomas. Immunohistochemical expression of Her2 was measured semiquantitatively. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and overall accuracy were calculated for both IHC methods using gene amplification by FISH as the end point, and IHC and FISH assays were tested in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CBE356 positive (2+ and 3+) cases were 94%, 89%, 95%, 84%, and 97%, respectively, and of HercepTest positive (2+ and 3+) cases were 91%, 66%, 98%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. A positive result with CBE356, HercepTest, or FISH was associated with significantly decreased overall survival (log rank p = 0.005, p = 0.0017, and p = 0.0005, respectively). Conclusions: Positive IHC staining for Her2 using CBE356 is 3% more accurate and 23% more sensitive at predicting Her2 gene amplification by FISH than positive staining with HercepTest. Negative IHC using CBE356 antibody is 6% more likely to represent a truly negative result than negative staining with HercepTest. Overall, CBE356 was a more accurate predictor of Her2 gene amplification by FISH than HercepTest.

No abstract