Ian Paterson inquests continue despite surgeon’s refusal to attend

Mr Ströhle told inquest counsel Jonathan Jones that his partner first saw Paterson privately in June 2002 after a biopsy found cancer in her left breast.

“Chloe was very young, she was obviously concerned about what she would look like after the operation,” he said.

“He explained what it was, saying there would be some folds of skin left behind to make it look like the cleavage was normal and he was working with a very excellent cosmetic surgeon,” Mr Ströhle said.

He said the couple were not made aware there would be an increased risk of the cancer recurring if breast tissue were left behind.

“You trust in your doctors, right, that they will do the best thing for you and they’re not going to jeopardise your health,” he said.

Following the surgery and a reconstruction carried out by a second surgeon, Ms Nikitas initially appeared to recover well.

However, she revisited Paterson after finding a new lump in spring 2005.

The surgeon told her there was nothing to worry about, and to return for a routine check-up in six months, the court heard.

In October of that year, a biopsy found a Grade 2 ductal cancer, the same grade as her original cancer, Mr Ströhle said.

“Chloe was obviously shocked… because how can it be that she had cancer again in the reconstructed breast?” he added.

When they asked how the cancer had returned, he said: “We were just told it was pure bad luck.

“We were both under no illusion that this was a death sentence. This was metastatic cancer and it was going to be terminal.”

Ms Nikitas died three years later, aged 43.