Lynda Wyld1,2, Isabel T Rubio3,4, Tibor Kovacs5. 1. Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 2. Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, United Kingdom. 3. Breast Surgical Oncology Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain. 4. Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 5. Guy's Hospital Breast Unit, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The substantial increase in the complexity of breast cancer care in the last few decades has resulted in significant improvements in survival rates and also in the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. However, across Europe there are variations in outcomes and access to the latest techniques. Whilst much of this variance is due to differences in health economies between European member states, training variation may also play a part. Training in breast cancer surgery varies greatly across Europe, not only in its basal discipline (general surgery, gynaecology or plastic surgery) but also in the length of training and whether there is any requirement for specialist training. Several countries have been leading the way in training breast specialist surgeons (the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand) with dedicated 1- or 2-year fellowships either within or in addition to standard training. Access to such training is limited and consequently many women in Europe are still treated by generalists, potentially denying them access to the best care. This paper reviews the issues surrounding training provision in breast surgery and some of the challenges which need to be addressed to improve the current situation. SUMMARY: Breast surgery training in Europe is of variable quality and duration, which may result in variations in the quality of care received by patients with breast cancer. Specialist training standards are urgently required which should be adopted by all European member states. Excellent models are available in the USA, the UK and Australia and New Zealand on which to base this training. KEY MESSAGES: The quality of training in breast surgery needs to be upgraded and harmonised across Europe.
BACKGROUND: The substantial increase in the complexity of breast cancer care in the last few decades has resulted in significant improvements in survival rates and also in the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. However, across Europe there are variations in outcomes and access to the latest techniques. Whilst much of this variance is due to differences in health economies between European member states, training variation may also play a part. Training in breast cancer surgery varies greatly across Europe, not only in its basal discipline (general surgery, gynaecology or plastic surgery) but also in the length of training and whether there is any requirement for specialist training. Several countries have been leading the way in training breast specialist surgeons (the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand) with dedicated 1- or 2-year fellowships either within or in addition to standard training. Access to such training is limited and consequently many women in Europe are still treated by generalists, potentially denying them access to the best care. This paper reviews the issues surrounding training provision in breast surgery and some of the challenges which need to be addressed to improve the current situation. SUMMARY: Breast surgery training in Europe is of variable quality and duration, which may result in variations in the quality of care received by patients with breast cancer. Specialist training standards are urgently required which should be adopted by all European member states. Excellent models are available in the USA, the UK and Australia and New Zealand on which to base this training. KEY MESSAGES: The quality of training in breast surgery needs to be upgraded and harmonised across Europe.
Authors: Maria João Cardoso; R Douglas Macmillan; Belén Merck; Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz; Richard Rainsbury Journal: Breast Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Kim Benstead; Nazim Serdar Turhal; Niall O'Higgins; Lynda Wyld; Magdalena Czarnecka-Operacz; Harald Gollnick; Peter Naredi; Jesper Grau Eriksen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: W P Weber; S D Soysal; I Fulco; M Barandun; D Babst; D Kalbermatten; D J Schaefer; D Oertli; E A Kappos; M Haug Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Ranjeet Jeevan; David A Cromwell; John P Browne; Christopher M Caddy; Jerome Pereira; Carmel Sheppard; Kimberley Greenaway; Jan H P van der Meulen Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Carlos A Garcia-Etienne; Mariano Tomatis; Joerg Heil; Kay Friedrichs; Rolf Kreienberg; Andreas Denk; Marion Kiechle; Fatemeh Lorenz-Salehi; Rainer Kimmig; Günter Emons; Mahmoud Danaei; Volker Heyl; Uwe Heindrichs; Christoph J Rageth; Wolfgang Janni; Lorenza Marotti; Marco Rosselli del Turco; Antonio Ponti Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Benjamin K Y Chan; Jill A Wiseberg-Firtell; Ramesh H S Jois; Katrin Jensen; Riccardo A Audisio Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-31