Does practice make perfect? Resident experience with breast surgery influences excision adequacy

Rate of residual tumor after repeat surgery for positive margins in ductal carcinoma in Situ, and predictive factors

AIMS

To evaluate the rate of residual tumor in re-excision specimen of patients with positive margins in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) following breast-conservative surgery, and to identify predictive factors of residual tumor.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a monocentric, retrospective study, from January 2010 to December 2020. All 103 patients who underwent re-excision for positive margins in DCIS following breast-conservative surgery for in situ or invasive breast carcinoma were included. Positive margins were defined as inferior to 2 mm from the DCIS component. Two groups were defined, depending on the presence of residual tumor or not, and were compared on their clinical and histopathological characteristics to identify predictive factors of residual tumor.

RESULTS

Residual tumor was found in re-excision specimen of 46 patients (44.7 %). The risk of residual tumor was increased in patients with more than 2 tumor foci (aOR: 12.4; 95 % CI: 1.2 -124.1; p = 0.032) and in those with extensive margin involvement (aOR: 3.2; 95 % CI: 1.3-8.2; p = 0.013). Finally, surgery performed after 2013 was associated with a lower risk of residual tumor (aOR: 0.23; 95 % CI: 0.09-0.058; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The rate of residual tumor in re-excision specimen of patients with positive margins in DCIS is high. Both the number of tumor foci and the extension of positive margins were identified as risk factors. Finally, the surgical learning curve for this procedure seems to be significantly correlated with the risk of residual tumor and needs to be considered.

Impact of Resident and Fellow Participation on Surgical Outcomes in Breast Conserving Surgery for Invasive Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Few studies examine the impact of surgical trainee involvement on tumor-free margins in breast conserving surgery (BCS). Our objective was to investigate the impact of resident and fellow involvement on positive margins rates following BCS for invasive breast cancer (BC).

DESIGN

We identified female patients who had BCS for BC between January 2005 to December 2015.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Around 1089 patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Of 1089 patients, mean age was 63 (range 43-99) years. Around 768 patients (70.1%) required preoperative localization, and 328 patients (29.9%) had a palpable cancer. Nonpalpable cancers had a smaller volume of specimen tissue excised (p = 0.0005) compared to palpable cancers, and no significant difference was observed in the positive margin rate between the nonpalpable group compared to the palpable group (24.7% nonpalpable vs. 25.3% palpable, p = 0.88). Nonpalpable cancer positive margin rates were 23.9% (n = 102/427) for cases performed by an attending surgeon, 25.0% (n = 15/60) with a junior resident (PGY 2-3), 28.6% (n = 8/28) with a senior resident (PGY 4-5), and 25.7% (n = 65/253) with a fellow, which were not statistically significant (p = 0.89). Palpable cancer positive margin rates were 27.6% (n = 47/170) for cases performed by an attending, 13.9% (n = 5/36) with an intern (PGY-1), 40.9% (n = 9/22) with a junior resident, 0% (n = 0/8) with a senior resident, and 23.9% (n = 22/92) with a fellow, which were also not significantly different (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Resident and fellow participation in BCS for BC does not appear to impact the rate of positive margins.

Senology in Gynaecology Specialist Training: a Baseline Survey from 2014

Introduction: Qualified training in senology is essential for maintaining adequate, high quality patient care. In order to meet the needs of doctors in training and those of the medical infrastructure it is necessary to assess the quality of training regularly, to enable its adaption and optimisation. Methods: We developed a comprehensive, 10 item online questionnaire to assess the quality of specialised training in senology. This questionnaire was sent to 4000 speciality trainees and young specialists countrywide via the DGGG newsletter and was accessible for over four weeks. Results: 111 obstetrics and gynaecology speciality trainees participated in this national survey, 79 % of whom were female. 33 % of participants were working at university hospitals, 29 % at hospitals offering maximal level care without an associated medical faculty, 37 % at hospitals offering primary and secondary level care and 2 % at gynaecology practices. 25 % of participants could imagine working in the field of senology in future. On average the current perception of general specialist training was satisfactory. Specialist trainees at university hospitals rated training in senology highest (score: 2.95) compared to those at other hospitals. A fixed rotation through a breast centre offering comprehensive advanced training was seen as a potential improvement to senology training. Conclusions: This is the first survey of specialised training in senology to be conducted in Germany. Results showed that there is significant potential for young doctors to enter the speciality in future. There are also significant differences in the perceived quality of senology training between training facilities. This survey aimed to determine the quality of specialised training at senology centres and hopes to contribute to a sustainable improvement in training. The intention is to continue to make senology attractive to gynaecologists and to ensure well-grounded training.

The promise of metabolic phenotyping in gastroenterology and hepatology

Disease risk and treatment response are determined, at the individual level, by a complex history of genetic and environmental interactions, including those with our endogenous microbiomes. Personalized health care requires a deep understanding of patient biology that can now be measured using a range of '-omics' technologies. Patient stratification involves the identification of genetic and/or phenotypic disease subclasses that require different therapeutic strategies. Stratified medicine approaches to disease diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic response monitoring herald a new dimension in patient care. Here, we explore the potential value of metabolic profiling as applied to unmet clinical needs in gastroenterology and hepatology. We describe potential applications in a number of diseases, with emphasis on large-scale population studies as well as metabolic profiling on the individual level, using spectrometric and imaging technologies that will leverage the discovery of mechanistic information and deliver novel health care solutions to improve clinical pathway management.