Prediction of primary breast cancer size and T-stage using micro-computed tomography in lumpectomy specimens

Background:

Histopathology is the only accepted method to measure and stage the breast tumor size. However, there is a need to find another method to measure and stage the tumor size when the pathological assessment is not available. Micro-computed tomography. (micro-CT) has the ability to measure tumor in three dimensions in an intact lumpectomy specimen. In this study, we aimed to determine the accuracy of micro-CT to measure and stage the primary tumor size in breast lumpectomy specimens, as compared to the histopathology.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy-two women who underwent lumpectomy surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Surgery from June 2011 to September 2011, and from August 2013 to December 2013 participated in this study. The lumpectomy specimens were scanned using micro-CT followed by routine pathological processing. The maximum dimension of the invasive breast tumor was obtained from the micro-CT image and was compared to the corresponding pathology report for each subject.

Results:

The invasive tumor size measurement by micro-CT was underestimated in 24 cases. (33%), overestimated in 37 cases. (51%), and matched it exactly in 11 cases. (15%) compared to the histopathology measurement for all the cases. However, micro-CT T-stage classification differed from histopathology in only 11. (15.2%) with 6 cases. (8.3%) classified as a higher stage by micro-CT, and 5 cases. (6.9%) classified as lower compared to histopathology. In addition, micro-CT demonstrated a statically significant strong agreement (κ =0.6, P < 0.05) with pathological tumor size and staging for invasive ductal carcinoma. (IDC) group. In contrast, there was no agreement. (κ = −2, P = 0.67) between micro-CT and pathology in estimating and staging tumor size for invasive lobular carcinoma. (ILC) group. This could be explained by a small sample size. (7) for ILC group.

Conclusions:

Micro-CT is a promising modality for measuring and staging the IDC.

Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

Development, implementation, and initial evaluation of a foundational open interoperability standard for oncology treatment planning and summarization

OBJECTIVE

Develop and evaluate a foundational oncology-specific standard for the communication and coordination of care throughout the cancer journey, with early-stage breast cancer as the use case.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Owing to broad uptake of the Health Level Seven (HL7) Consolidated Clinical Document Architecture (C-CDA) by health information exchanges and large provider organizations, we developed an implementation guide in congruence with C-CDA. The resultant product was balloted through the HL7 process and subsequently implemented by two groups: the Health Story Project (Health Story) and the Athena Breast Health Network (Athena).

RESULTS

The HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA, Release 2: Clinical Oncology Treatment Plan and Summary, DSTU Release 1 (eCOTPS) was successfully balloted and published as a Draft Standard for Trial Use (DSTU) in October 2013. Health Story successfully implemented the eCOTPS the 2014 meeting of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) in a clinical vignette. During the evaluation and implementation of eCOPS, Athena identified two practical concerns: (1) the need for additional CDA templates specific to their use case; (2) the many-to-many mapping of Athena-defined data elements to eCOTPS.

DISCUSSION

Early implementation of eCOTPS has demonstrated successful vendor-agnostic transmission of oncology-specific data. The modularity enabled by the C-CDA framework ensures the relatively straightforward expansion of the eCOTPS to include other cancer subtypes. Lessons learned during the process will strengthen future versions of the standard.

CONCLUSION

eCOTPS is the first oncology-specific CDA standard to achieve HL7 DSTU status. Oncology standards will improve care throughout the cancer journey by allowing the efficient transmission of reliable, meaningful, and current clinical data between the many involved stakeholders.

Management of older women with early-stage breast cancer

Breast cancer is a disease of aging. The average age at diagnosis is 61, and the majority of deaths occur after age 65. Caring for older women with breast cancer is a major challenge, as many have coexisting illness that can preclude optimal breast cancer treatment and which frequently have greater effect than the breast cancer itself. Older patients with cancer should be screened or have a brief geriatric assessment to detect potentially remediable problems not usually assessed by oncologists (e.g., self-care, falls, social support, nutrition). Older women with early-stage breast cancer should be treated initially with surgery unless they have an exceedingly short life expectancy. Primary endocrine therapy should be considered for patients who have hormone receptor-positive tumors and a very short life expectancy, an acute illness that delays surgery, or tumors that need to be downstaged to be resectable. Sentinel node biopsy should be considered for patients in whom it might affect treatment decisions. Breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery may be omitted for selected older women, especially for those with hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer that are compliant with adjuvant endocrine therapy. The majority of older women with stage I and II breast cancer have hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tumors, and endocrine therapy provides them with optimal systemic treatment. If these patients have life expectancies exceeding at least 5 years, they should be considered for genetic assays to determine the potential value of chemotherapy. Partnering care with geriatricians or primary care physicians trained in geriatrics should be considered for all vulnerable and frail older patients.

Lumpectomy specimen margins are not reliable in predicting residual disease in breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

In breast conserving surgery, the concordance between lumpectomy margin (LM) status and the status of the corresponding lumpectomy cavity remains uncertain.

METHODS

We analyzed pathology reports of lumpectomies from 2004 to 2006. We included those which contained both ink-directed LM and complete (≥4) separate corresponding shaved cavity margins (SCMs). SCM pathology was used as a surrogate for lumpectomy cavity status, to determine the predictive value of LM for residual disease.

RESULTS

Pathology from 1,201 pairs of LM and SCM from 242 patients was compared. LM status predicted corresponding lumpectomy cavity status with 50.9% sensitivity, 69.5% specificity, 35% positive predictive value, and 81.4% negative predictive value, giving an overall accuracy of 64.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Oriented LMs are not reliable for predicting lumpectomy cavity status, and therefore not reliable for directing re-excision. Taking complete, oriented SCMs at the time of lumpectomy may improve accuracy compared with traditional LM assessment.

Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile," (PHP) is a free genetic risk assessment software tool for primary prenatal providers that collects patient-entered family (FHH), personal, and obstetrical health history, performs risk assessment, and presents the provider with clinical decision support during the prenatal encounter. The tool is freely available for download at www.hughesriskapps.net. We evaluated the implementation of PHP in four geographically diverse clinical sites. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients seen prior to the study period and for patients who used the PHP to collect data on documentation of FHH, discussion of cystic fibrosis (CF) and hemoglobinopathy (HB) carrier screening, and CF and HB interventions (tests, referrals). Five hundred pre-implementation phase and 618 implementation phase charts were reviewed. Documentation of a 3-generation FHH or pedigree improved at three sites; patient race/ethnicity at three sites, father of the baby (FOB) race/ethnicity at all sites, and ancestry for the patient and FOB at three sites (P < 0.001-0001). CF counseling improved for implementation phase patients at one site (8% vs. 48%, P < 0.0001) and CF screening/referrals at two (2% vs. 14%, P < 0.0001; 6% vs. 14%; P = 0.05). Counseling and intervention rates did not increase for HB. This preliminary study suggests that the PHP can improve documentation of FHH, race, and ancestry, as well as the compliance with current CF counseling and intervention guidelines in some prenatal clinics. Future evaluation of the PHP should include testing in a larger number of clinical environments, assessment of additional performance measures, and evaluation of the system's overall clinical utility.

Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

PURPOSE

Family history of cancer (CFH) is important for identifying individuals to receive genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies have demonstrated low rates of family history documentation and referral for GC/GT.

METHODS

CFH quality and GC/GT practices for patients with breast (BC) or colon cancer (CRC) were assessed in 271 practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative in fall 2011.

RESULTS

A total of 212 practices completed measures regarding CFH and GC/GT practices for 10,466 patients; 77.4% of all medical records reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in first-degree relatives, and 61.5% of medical records documented presence or absence of CFH in second-degree relatives, with significantly higher documentation for patients with BC compared with CRC. Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of medical records (BC, 45.2%; CRC, 35.4%; P ≤ .001). Referall for GC/GT occurred in 22.1% of all patients with BC or CRC. Of patients with increased risk for hereditary cancer, 52.2% of patients with BC and 26.4% of those with CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed, consent was documented 77.7% of the time, and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time.

CONCLUSION

We identified low rates of complete CFH documentation and low rates of referral for those with BC or CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists. Documentation and referral were greater for patients with BC compared with CRC. Education and support regarding the importance of accurate CFH and the benefits of proactive high-risk patient management are clearly needed.

Breast cancer risk assessment: How risk models can “overdiagnose” risk

184

Background: Overdiagnosis is commonly defined as a diagnosis of "disease" which will never cause symptoms or death during a patient's lifetime. Similarly, overdiagnosis can also happen when individuals are given the diagnosis of being at risk for a disease, such as being at high-risk for developing breast cancer. Women can be given such a diagnosis by meeting a set of risk assessment criteria, which are often accompanied by recommended management strategies. We sought to identify the extent and consequences of overdiagnosis for individuals being at high risk for breast cancer using the American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines for the appropriate use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Methods: We identified women who fit the ACS criteria in a population based sample at a community hospital. The ACS criteria mentions three risk assessment models for determining a woman’s risk, and these criteria were reviewed to determine the extent of possible overdiagnosis in this population. The expected resource utilization resulting from this overdiagnosis, and the impact on patient quality of life are extrapolated. Results: 5,894 women who received mammography screening at the study site were included. 342 (5.8%) of the women were diagnosed as high risk by at least one model. However, only 0.2% of the total study population were diagnosed as high risk by all three models. One model identified 330 (5.6%) to be at high risk, while the other two models identified many fewer eligible women (25, 0.4% and 54, 0.9% respectively). Conclusions: Using different models to evaluation the ACS criteria identifies very different populations, implying a large potential for overdiagnosis. Further, this overdiagnosis is likely to result in the outcome of screening too many women, incurring false positives and unnecessary resource utilization.

An interoperable HL7 document standard to improve the quality of cancer care across multiple locations

12

Background: Cancer care is by nature interdisciplinary and increasingly depends on seamless electronic transmission of clinical data. Health information exchange and semantic understanding are critical for improved outcomes, personalized medicine, comparative effectiveness research, and cost control. While there is a growing focus on this, sharing patient information remains difficult due to a lack of standardization and general incompatibility between electronic health record products. There is a need for well-designed, oncology-specific interoperability standards. Thus ASCO is developing standards to improve the quality and insight of cancer care. Methods: ASCO volunteers formed a Standards Work Group (Standards WG) in 2012, and ASCO engaged an independent consulting firm to perform the technical work. The Standards WG first developed an interoperable standard with broad application that would also be a foundation for future standards work. They adapted ASCO’s Breast Cancer Adjuvant Treatment Plan and Summary (Breast TPS), which was originally developed as a paper-based form. This adaptation required extensive work involving input from medical and surgical oncologists, ASCO staff, and the consultants. This preparatory work was vital to define and disambiguate clinical concepts. Some value sets in the original Breast TPS were replaced with National Cancer Institute value sets. Multiple oncology and standards stakeholders reviewed the draft to ensure accurate representation of the data and harmonization with related standards. Results: The standard was developed using the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Clinical Document Architecture, a widely used XML-based markup standard with national and international recognition. The draft Breast Cancer Adjuvant Treatment Plan and Summary Standard was successfully balloted through HL7 in May 2013 and will subsequently be published for trial use in late 2013. Conclusions: The Breast Cancer Adjuvant Treatment Plan and Summary Standard will improve quality by allowing providers to efficiently transmit clinical data with semantic meaning to health professionals, patients, quality improvement initiatives, and registries.

Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343

PURPOSE

To determine whether there is a benefit to adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery and tamoxifen in women age ≥ 70 years with early-stage breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 1994 and February 1999, 636 women (age ≥ 70 years) who had clinical stage I (T1N0M0 according to TNM classification) estrogen receptor (ER) -positive breast carcinoma treated by lumpectomy were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen plus radiation therapy (TamRT; 317 women) or tamoxifen alone (Tam; 319 women). Primary end points were time to local or regional recurrence, frequency of mastectomy, breast cancer-specific survival, time to distant metastasis, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Median follow-up for treated patients is now 12.6 years. At 10 years, 98% of patients receiving TamRT (95% CI, 96% to 99%) compared with 90% of those receiving Tam (95% CI, 85% to 93%) were free from local and regional recurrences. There were no significant differences in time to mastectomy, time to distant metastasis, breast cancer-specific survival, or OS between the two groups. Ten-year OS was 67% (95% CI, 62% to 72%) and 66% (95% CI, 61% to 71%) in the TamRT and Tam groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

With long-term follow-up, the previously observed small improvement in locoregional recurrence with the addition of radiation therapy remains. However, this does not translate into an advantage in OS, distant disease-free survival, or breast preservation. Depending on the value placed on local recurrence, Tam remains a reasonable option for women age ≥ 70 years with ER-positive early-stage breast cancer.

Personalizing prenatal care using family health history: identifying a panel of conditions for a novel electronic genetic screening tool

In the age of genomic medicine, family health history (FHH) remains an important tool for personalized risk assessment as it can inform approaches to disease prevention and management. In primary care, including in prenatal settings, providers recognize that FHH enables them to assess the risk for birth defects and complex conditions that not only affect the fetus health, but also the mother’s. However, many providers lack the time to gather FHH or the knowledge to confidently interpret the data. Electronic tools providing clinical decision support using FHH data can aid the busy provider with data collection and interpretation. We describe the scope of conditions included in a patient-entered FHH tool that provides clinical decision support and point-of-care education to assist with patient management. This report details how we selected the conditions for which it is appropriate to use FHH as a means to promote personalized medicine in primary prenatal care.

The role of chemoprevention in modifying the risk of breast cancer in women with atypical breast lesions

Women with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), and severe ADH are at increased risk of breast cancer, but a systematic quantification of this risk and the efficacy of chemoprevention in the clinical setting is still lacking. The objective of this study is to evaluate a woman's risk of breast cancer based on atypia type and to determine the effect of chemoprevention in decreasing this risk. Review of 76,333 breast pathology reports from three institutions within Partners Healthcare System, Boston, from 1987 to 2010 using natural language processing was carried out. This approach identified 2,938 women diagnosed with atypical breast lesions. The main outcome of this study is breast cancer occurrence. Of the 2,938 patients with atypical breast lesions, 1,658 were documented to have received no chemoprevention, and 184/1,658 (11.1 %) developed breast cancer at a mean follow-up of 68 months. Estimated 10-year cancer risks were 17.3 % with ADH, 20.7 % with ALH, 23.7 % with LCIS, and 26.0 % with severe ADH. In a subset of patients treated from 1999 on (the chemoprevention era), those who received no chemoprevention had an estimated 10-year breast cancer risk of 21.3 %, whereas those treated with chemoprevention had a 10-year risk of 7.5 % (p < 0.001). Chemoprevention use significantly reduced breast cancer risk for all atypia types (p < 0.05). The risk of breast cancer with atypical breast lesions is substantial. Physicians should counsel patients with ADH, ALH, LCIS, and severe ADH about the benefit of chemoprevention in decreasing their breast cancer risk.

A program to increase use of chemoprevention for women with high-risk breast lesions

46

Background: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and exemestane have been demonstrated to reduce risk of breast cancer in high-risk women, bututilization is very low.Among the reasons cited are lack of awareness and reluctance of physicians to prescribe. Women with high-risk breast lesions are generally candidates for chemoprevention and can be evaluated and counseled in a high-risk breast clinic. Knowledge about drugs that can prevent breast cancer may increase uptake among high-risk women. Methods: In a single practice, women with a diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), or severe atypical ductal hyperplasia/borderline ductal carcinoma in situ are offered an extended visit with a nurse practitioner in the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic. The visit includes data collection, patient interview about relevant history and personal preferences, risk assessment, including use of relevant models (via HughesRiskApps.com), and recommendations for surveillance and prevention. Emphasis is placed on understanding of individual risk as well as risks and benefits and appropriateness of chemoprevention and surveillance modalities. Based on personal and family history, women are advised if chemoprevention is appropriate to consider, their choice is made, and they are encouraged to have surveillance in the Breast Clinic. Results: Since January 2001, 487 women with a diagnosis of ADH, ALH or LCIS, or severe ADH have been evaluated and counseled in the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic. 132/487 (27%) were advised against taking chemoprevention and 355/487 (73%) were appropriate for chemoprevention. Of those for whom chemoprevention was clinically appropriate, 188/355 (53%) took one of the medications, or participated in a chemoprevention trial. 53/188 (28%) did not complete therapy (discontinued at 2 weeks to 54 months) due to preference or side effects. 75 women have completed five years of therapy and 60 are currently on therapy. Conclusions: When provided with personalized information about breast cancer risk and the pros and cons of chemoprevention, many women will choose to take medication to reduce breast cancer risk.