A Novel Mixed-Methods Platform Study Protocol for Investigating New Surgical Devices, with Embedded Shared Learning: Ibra-net Breast Lesion Localisation Study

Introduction: New medical devices must have adequate research, such that outcomes are known, enabling patients to be consented with knowledge of the safety and efficacy of the device to be implanted. Device trials are challenging due to the learning curve and iterative assessment of best practice. This study is designed to pilot a national collaborative approach to medical device introduction by breast surgeons in the UK, using breast localisation devices as an exemplar. The aim is to develop an effective and transferable surgical device platform protocol design, with embedded shared learning. Methods and analysis: The iBRA-net localisation study is a UK based prospective, multi-centre platform study, comparing the safety and efficacy of novel localisation devices with wire-guided breast lesion localisation for wide local excision, using Magseed® as the pilot intervention group. Centres performing breast lesion localisation for wide local excision or excision biopsy will be eligible to participate if using one of the included devices. Further intervention arms will be added as new devices are CE marked. Outcomes will be collected via an online database. The primary outcome measure will be identification of the index lesion. Participating surgeons will be asked to record shared learning events via online questionnaires and focus group interviews to inform future study arms. Ethics and dissemination: The study will aim to collect data on 950 procedures for each intervention (Magseed® and wire localisation) from UK breast centres over an 18-month period. Shared learning will be prospectively evaluated via thematic analysis to refine breast localisation technique and to promote early identification of potential pitfalls and problems. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer reviewed journals. Registration: This is a UK national audit registered with Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. Highlights This protocol outlines a novel methodology for a collaborative national platform study to collate safety and efficacy data on new medical devices. Improved registration and audit of new medical devices is a major theme of the Cumberlege report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. We outline a protocol for a UK based multi-centre prospective audit to investigate the safety and efficacy of new surgical devices for breast lesion localisation. The study will run as a platform study using wire localisation as a control group and Magseed® as the first intervention arm. The protocol is designed for additional bolt-on intervention arms for other localisation devices, such as Hologic Localizer™ and Savi Scout®, when they become available to the European market. This will enable comparison of these devices to datasets already collected on wire and Magseed® localisation. The study includes a novel shared learning methodology using iterative online database reporting and surgical interviews to centrally distribute information on learning events, critical governance issues and recommended protocols for future use.

[1]  J. Harvey,et al.  Impalpable breast lesion localisation, a logistical challenge: results of the UK iBRA-NET national practice questionnaire , 2020, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[2]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages , 2013, BMJ.

[3]  Jay J H Park,et al.  An Overview of Platform Trials with a Checklist for Clinical Readers. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  J. Dimick,et al.  The IDEAL Framework for Evaluating Surgical Innovation: How It Can Be Used to Improve the Quality of Evidence. , 2019, JAMA surgery.

[5]  M. Parmar,et al.  Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial , 2009, Trials.

[6]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages , 2013, BMJ.

[7]  A. Coulter,et al.  Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: transforming informed consent , 2017 .

[8]  E. Caiani,et al.  The need for transparency of clinical evidence for medical devices in Europe , 2018, The Lancet.

[9]  K. Hirji,et al.  No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study , 2009, Trials.

[10]  J. Harvey,et al.  Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  K. Mokbel,et al.  Evolving Role of Magseed in Wireless Localization of Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 1,559 Procedures , 2020, AntiCancer Research.

[12]  N. Gale,et al.  Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[13]  J. Connor,et al.  The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. , 2015, JAMA.

[14]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[15]  David W. Taggart,et al.  No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations , 2009, The Lancet.

[16]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[17]  W. Rogers,et al.  Innovative surgery: the ethical challenges , 2011, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[18]  Mitsuru Sasako,et al.  Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  J. Woodcock,et al.  Master Protocols to Study Multiple Therapies, Multiple Diseases, or Both. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.