Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study

Authors: Gareth Davies, Nicola Mills, Chris Holcombe, Shelley Potter, on behalf of the iBRA Steering Group

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed breast reconstruction technique worldwide but the technique is evolving rapidly. High-quality evidence is needed to support practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence but can be challenging to conduct.
iBRA is a four-phased study which aimed to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of an RCT in IBBR. In phase 3, the randomisation acceptability study, an electronic survey and qualitative interviews were conducted to explore professionals’ perceptions of future trials in IBBR. Findings from the interviews are presented here.

Methods

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample of 31 health professionals (HPs) who completed the survey to explore their attitudes to the feasibility of potential RCTs in more detail. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently until data saturation was achieved.

Results

Almost all HPs acknowledged the need for better evidence to support the practice of IBBR and most identified RCTs as generating the highest-quality evidence. Despite highlighting potential challenges, most participants supported the need for an RCT in IBBR. A minority, however, were strongly opposed to a future trial. The opposition and challenges identified centred around three key themes; (i) limited understanding of pragmatic study design and the value of randomisation in minimising bias; (ii) clinician and patient equipoise and (iii) aspects of surgical culture and training that were not supportive of RCTs.

Conclusion

There is a need for well-designed, large-scale RCTs to support the current practice of IBBR but barriers to their acceptability are evident. The perceived barriers to RCTs in breast reconstruction identified in this study are not insurmountable and have previously been overcome in other similar surgical trials. This may represent an opportunity, not only to establish the evidence base for IBBR, but also to improve engagement in RCTs in breast surgery in general to ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN37664281.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ, Pusic AL, McCarthy CM, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15–23.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Mennie JC, Mohanna PN, O'Donoghue JM, Rainsbury R, Cromwell DA. National trends in immediate and delayed post-mastectomy reconstruction procedures in England: a seven-year population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(1):52–61.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57(1):1–5.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants. A new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(2):134–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Tasoulis MK, Iqbal FM, Cawthorn S, MacNeill F, Vidya R. Subcutaneous implant breast reconstruction: time to reconsider? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(9):1636–46.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Potter S, Browning D, Savović J, Holcombe C, Blazeby JM. Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2015;102(9):1010–25.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hallberg H, Rafnsdottir S, Selvaggi G, Strandell A, Samuelsson O, Stadig I, et al. Benefits and risks with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and mesh support in immediate breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(3):130–47.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Potter S, Mackenzie M, Blazeby J. Does the addition of mesh improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer? BMJ. 2018;362:k2607.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Potter S, Conroy EJ, Cutress RI, Williamson PR, Whisker L, Thrush S, et al. Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):254–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Srinivasa DR, Garvey PB, Qi J, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Pusic AL, et al. Direct-to-implant versus two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction: 2-year risks and patient-reported outcomes from a prospective, multicenter study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(5):869–77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Sorkin M, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Kozlow JH, Pusic AL, et al. Acellular dermal matrix in immediate expander/implant breast reconstruction: a multicenter assessment of risks and benefits. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):1091–100.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Dikmans REG, Negenborn VL, Bouman M-B, Winters HAH, Twisk JWR, Ruhé PQ, et al. Two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction compared with immediate one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction augmented with an acellular dermal matrix: an open-label, phase 4, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):251–8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG, Smit JM, Winters HAH, Don Griot JPW, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1205–14.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Lohmander F, Lagergren J, Roy PG, Johansson H, Brandberg Y, Eriksen C, et al. implant based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: safety data from an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in the setting of breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg. 2019;269(5):836–41.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Fraser C, Mitchell E, Sullivan F, et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:Mr000013.PubMed
16.
Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(12):1143–56.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Briel M, Olu KK, von Elm E, Kasenda B, Alturki R, Agarwal A, et al. A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;80:8–15.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(8):912–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Blencowe NS, Cook JA, Pinkney T, Rogers C, Reeves BC, Blazeby JM. Delivering successful randomized controlled trials in surgery: methods to optimize collaboration and study design. Clin Trials. 2017;14(2):211–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Harcourt D, Rumsey N. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35(4):477–87.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Potter S, Mills N, Cawthorn SJ, Donovan J, Blazeby JM. Time to be BRAVE: is educating surgeons the key to unlocking the potential of randomised clinical trials in surgery? A qualitative study. Trials. 2014;15:80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
McCarthy CM, Lee CN, Halvorson EG, Riedel E, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ, et al. The use of acellular dermal matrices in two-stage expander/implant reconstruction: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):57s–66s.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Winters ZE, Emson M, Griffin C, Mills J, Hopwood P, Bidad N, et al. Learning from the QUEST multicentre feasibility randomization trials in breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Br J Surg. 2015;102(1):45–56.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Potter S, Conroy EJ, Williamson PR, Thrush S, Whisker LJ, Skillman JM, et al. The iBRA (implant breast reconstruction evaluation) study: protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to inform the feasibility, design and conduct of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial comparing new techniques of implant-based breast reconstruction. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Mylvaganam S, Conroy E, Williamson PR, Barnes NLP, Cutress RI, Gardiner MD, et al. Variation in the provision and practice of implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire. Breast. 2017;35:182–90.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Mylvaganam S, Conroy EJ, Williamson PR, Barnes NLP, Cutress RI, Gardiner MD, et al. Adherence to best practice consensus guidelines for implant-based breast reconstruction: Results from the iBRA national practice questionnaire survey. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(5):708–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefPubMed
30.
The iBRA Steering Group. P106. Appropriately-designed randomised trials may be an acceptable method for addressing uncertainties in implant-based breast reconstruction: preliminary findings from the iBRA randomisation acceptability survey. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(5):912.CrossRef
31.
Iskandar ME, Dayan E, Lucido D, Samson W, Sultan M, Dayan JH, et al. Factors influencing incidence and type of postmastectomy breast reconstruction in an urban multidisciplinary cancer center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):270e–6e.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Adeline; 1967.
33.
Djulbegovic B. The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control. 2009;16(4):342–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Nepogodiev D, Chapman SJ, Kolias AG, Fitzgerald JE, Lee M, Blencowe NS. The effect of trainee research collaboratives in the UK. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(4):247–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Royal College of Surgeons of England. Surgical research report. 2019.
36.
Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):789–98.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000496.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Kearney A, Harman NL, Rosala-Hallas A, Beecher C, Blazeby JM, Bower P, et al. Development of an online resource for recruitment research in clinical trials to organise and map current literature. Clin Trials. 2018;15(6):533–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Caldwell PH, Hamilton S, Tan A, Craig JC. Strategies for increasing recruitment to randomised controlled trials: systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000368.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Townsend D, Mills N, Savovic J, Donovan JL. A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2015;16:432.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Donovan JL, Lane JA, Peters TJ, Brindle L, Salter E, Gillatt D, et al. Development of a complex intervention improved randomization and informed consent in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:29–36.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Lane JA. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(10):1127–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Jepson M, Elliott D, Conefrey C, Wade J, Rooshenas L, Wilson C, et al. An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:75–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Rooshenas L, Elliott D, Wade J, Jepson M, Paramasivan S, Strong S, et al. conveying equipoise during recruitment for clinical trials: qualitative synthesis of clinicians’ practices across six randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002147.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Donovan JL, Rooshenas L, Jepson M, Elliott D, Wade J, Avery K, et al. Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Trials. 2016;17(1):283.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Rooshenas L, Scott LJ, Blazeby JM, Rogers CA, Tilling KM, Husbands S, et al. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:108–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Jepson M, Donovan JL. intensive triangulation of qualitative research and quantitative data to improve recruitment to randomized trials: the quintet approach. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(5):672–9.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Elliott D, Hamdy FC, Leslie TA, Rosario D, Dudderidge T, Hindley R, et al. Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation vs radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(6):970–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Paramasivan S, Rogers CA, Welbourn R, Byrne JP, Salter N, Mahon D, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes. 2017;41(11):1654–61.CrossRef
51.
Mills N, Gaunt D, Blazeby JM, Elliott D, Husbands S, Holding P, et al. Training health professionals to recruit into challenging randomized controlled trials improved confidence: the development of the QuinteT randomized controlled trial recruitment training intervention. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:34–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Strong S, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Wilson C, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. ‘The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual’: a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology. Trials. 2016;17(1):212.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Paleri V, Patterson J, Rousseau N, Moloney E, Craig D, Tzelis D, et al. Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22(16):1–144.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Perceived barriers to randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction: obstacle to trial initiation or opportunity to resolve? A qualitative study
Authors
Gareth Davies
Nicola Mills
Chris Holcombe
Shelley Potter
on behalf of the iBRA Steering Group
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4227-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Acupuncture treatment on the motor area of the scalp for motor dysfunction in children with cerebral palsy: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine for patients admitted to intensive care due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)—protocol of randomised controlled trial AZIQUINE-ICU

Methodology

The mixed model for repeated measures for cluster randomized trials: a simulation study investigating bias and type I error with missing continuous data

Study protocol

Study Protocol for Better Evidence for Selecting Transplant Fluids (BEST-Fluids): a pragmatic, registry-based, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of intravenous fluid therapy with Plasma-Lyte 148 versus 0.9% saline on delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplantation

Study protocol

Folic acid supplementation in children with sickle cell disease: study protocol for a double-blind randomized cross-over trial

Study protocol

Supervised exercise protocol for lower limbs in subjects with chronic venous disease: an evaluator-blinded, randomized clinical trial