The quality of preoperative diagnostics and surgery and their impact on delays in breast cancer treatment - A population based study

Imaging in metastatic breast cancer, CT, PET/CT, MRI, WB-DWI, CCA: review and new perspectives

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women and remains the second leading cause of death in Western countries. It represents a heterogeneous group of diseases with diverse tumoral behaviour, treatment responsiveness and prognosis. While major progress in diagnosis and treatment has resulted in a decline in breast cancer-related mortality, some patients will relapse and prognosis in this cohort of patients remains poor. Treatment is determined according to tumor subtype; primarily hormone receptor status and HER2 expression. Menopausal status and site of disease relapse are also important considerations in treatment protocols.

MAIN BODY

Staging and repeated evaluation of patients with metastatic breast cancer are central to the accurate assessment of disease extent at diagnosis and during treatment; guiding ongoing clinical management. Advances have been made in the diagnostic and therapeutic fields, particularly with new targeted therapies. In parallel, oncological imaging has evolved exponentially with the development of functional and anatomical imaging techniques. Consistent, reproducible and validated methods of assessing response to therapy is critical in effectively managing patients with metastatic breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Major progress has been made in oncological imaging over the last few decades. Accurate disease assessment at diagnosis and during treatment is important in the management of metastatic breast cancer. CT (and BS if appropriate) is generally widely available, relatively cheap and sufficient in many cases. However, several additional imaging modalities are emerging and can be used as adjuncts, particularly in pregnancy or other diagnostically challenging cases. Nevertheless, no single imaging technique is without limitation. The authors have evaluated the vast array of imaging techniques - individual, combined parametric and multimodal - that are available or that are emerging in the management of metastatic breast cancer. This includes WB DW-MRI, CCA, novel PET breast cancer-epitope specific radiotracers and radiogenomics.

Dual-Layer Rotation: A Versatile Therapeutic Mammoplasty Technique

Background

Multifocal or complex breast lesions are a challenge for breast-conserving surgery, particularly surgery in small breasts or those located in the upper inner quadrant. The dual-layer rotation technique exploits the idea of manipulating the skin and glandular tissue in separate layers to fill the resection cavity via vertical mammoplasty if skin excision is not required, except in the central area.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective review of consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent DLR mammoplasty between 2017 and 2019 at a single institution. Clinical data, reoperations, surgical complications, delays in adjuvant treatments, and the need for late revisional surgery were evaluated. Aesthetic outcomes were evaluated objectively and subjectively from photographs.

Results

The study included 46 breasts of 40 patients. Tumors were located in the UIQ (30%, 14/46) or in multiple quadrants (22%, 10/46). One third (33%, 13/40) of the patients had a small breast cup size (A–B). Negative margins were primarily achieved in 45 of the 46 breasts. Major complications occurred in three patients, who needed reoperation, and adjuvant therapy was delayed for one of these patients. Late refinement surgery was needed for two patients. The objective and subjective aesthetic outcomes were good or excellent regardless of the tumor position.

Conclusion

As a novel oncoplastic approach, DLR mammoplasty offers a one-step procedure to treat selected breast cancer patients with challenging resection defects due to different breast sizes or lesion locations. The technique preserves the breast’s natural appearance.

Tumor margins that lead to reoperation in breast cancer: A retrospective register study of 4,489 patients

Background and Objectives

Optimal margins for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remain controversial in breast‐conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy. We examine the association of positive margins, reoperations, DCIS and age.

Methods

A retrospective study of histopathological reports (4489 patients). Margin positivity was defined as ink on tumor for invasive carcinoma. For DCIS, we applied 2 mm anterior and side margin thresholds, and ink on tumor in the posterior margin.

Results

The incidence of positive side margins was 20% in BCS and 5% in mastectomies (p < 0.001). Of these patients, 68% and 14% underwent a reoperation (p < 0.001). After a positive side margin in BCS, the reoperation rates according to age groups were 74% (<49), 69% (50–64), 68% (65–79), and 42% (80+) (p = 0.013). Of BCS patients with invasive carcinoma in the side margin, 73% were reoperated on. A reoperation was performed in 70% of patients with a close (≤1 mm) DCIS side margin, compared to 43% with a wider (1.1–2 mm) margin (p = 0.002). The reoperation rates were 55% in invasive carcinoma with close DCIS, 66% in close extensive intraductal component (EIC), and 83% in close pure DCIS (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Individual assessment as opposed to rigid adherence to guidelines was used in the decision on reoperation.

Factors Affecting Time to Surgery in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine factors affecting time to surgery (TTS) to identify potential modifiable factors to improve timeliness of care.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage 0-3 breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy in 2 clinical trials, conducted in ten centers across the US, were analyzed. No preoperative workup was mandated by the study; those receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded.

RESULTS

The median TTS among the 583 patients in this cohort was 34 days (range: 1-289). Patient age, race, tumor palpability, and genomic subtype did not influence timeliness of care defined as TTS ≤30 days. Hispanic patients less likely to have a TTS ≤30 days (P = .001). There was significant variation in TTS by surgeon (P < .001); those practicing in an academic center more likely to have TTS ≤30 days than those in a community setting (55.1% vs 19.3%, P < .001). Patients who had a preoperative ultrasound had a similar TTS to those who did not (TTS ≤30 days 41.9% vs 51.9%, respectively, P = .109), but those who had a preoperative MRI had a significantly increased TTS (TTS ≤30 days 25.0% vs 50.9%, P < .001). On multivariate analysis, patient ethnicity was no longer significantly associated with TTS ≤30 (P = .150). Rather, use of MRI (OR: .438; 95% CI: .287-.668, P < .001) and community practice type (OR: .324; 95% CI: .194-.541, P < .001) remained independent predictors of lower likelihood of TTS ≤30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative MRI significantly increases time to surgery; surgeons should consider this in deciding on its use.

Can supine breast magnetic resonance imaging help hit the target in extreme oncoplastic surgery?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical value of supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for tumor localization in breast cancer patients with large or multifocal tumors detected by prone MRI, scheduled for oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OBCS). Outcomes were compared with those of patients who underwent wide local excision (WLE) or OBCS without MRI guidance.

METHODS

Over a 2-year period, consecutive patients with large or multifocal disease scheduled for OBCS with MRI-only findings were invited to participate (Group-1). Supplementary supine MRI was performed, and tumor margins were marked in the surgical position. Consecutive patients with early, non-palpable breast cancer who underwent WLE (Group-2) or OBCS (Group-3) were included for comparisons. The primary outcome was reoperation due to an insufficient margin. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and delayed adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

Altogether, 102 breasts (98 patients) were analyzed. All preoperative demographic data were comparable among the three groups. Multifocality, tumor-to-breast volume ratio, and the volume of excised breast tissue were significantly greater in Group-1 than in Groups-2 and 3. Operation time was longer and the need for axillary clearance or surgery for both breasts was more common in Groups-1 and 3 than in Group-2. Adequate margins were achieved in all patients in Groups-1 and 2, and one patient underwent re-excision in Group-3.

CONCLUSIONS

Supine MRI in the surgical position is a new, promising method to localize multifocal, large tumors visible on MRI. Its short-term outcomes were comparable with those of conventional WLE and OBCS.

Resection margins and local recurrences in breast cancer: Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

This retrospective cohort study aims to compare surgical margins, reoperations and local recurrences after conventional or oncoplastic breast conservation surgery (BCS). Furthermore, we aim to investigate differences between various oncoplastic techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed 1800 consecutive patients with primary invasive breast cancer (N = 1707) or ductal carcinoma in situ (N = 93) who underwent BCS at Helsinki University Hospital between 2010 and 2012.

RESULTS

Conventional BCS was performed in 1189 (66.1%) patients, oncoplastic BCS in 611 (33.9%). Various oncoplastic techniques were used. Patients with oncoplastic BCS had more often multifocal (p < 0.001), larger (p < 0.001), palpable tumours (p < 0.001) with larger resection specimens (p < 0.001). The amount of resected tissue varied substantially depending on the oncoplastic technique. Patients treated with oncoplastic BCS were younger (p < 0.001) and their tumours were more aggressive according to histological grade (p < 0.001), T-stage (p < 0.001), Ki-67 (p < 0.001) and lymph node status (p < 0.001). There was no difference, however, in surgical margins (p = 0.578) or reoperation rates (p = 0.430) between the groups. A total of 152 (8.4%) patients were reoperated because of insufficient margins, 96 (8.1%) in the conventional, 56 (9.2%) in the oncoplastic BCS group. The median follow-up time was 75 (2-94) months. There was no difference in local recurrence-free survival between the conventional and oncoplastic BCS groups (log-rank test, p = 0.172).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncoplastic BCS was used for larger, multifocal and more aggressive tumours. Nevertheless, no difference in reoperation rate or local recurrences were found. Oncoplastic BCS is as safe as conventional BCS enabling breast conserving for patients who otherwise were candidates for mastectomy.

Hospital transfer after a breast cancer diagnosis: A population-based study in the Netherlands of the extent, predictive characteristics and its impact on time to treatment

PURPOSE

Patients may transfer of hospital for clinical reasons but this may delay time to treatment. The purpose of this study is to provide insight in the extent of hospital transfer in breast cancer care; which type of patients transfer and what is the impact on time to treatment.

METHODS

We included 41,413 breast cancer patients registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry between 2014 and 2016. We investigated transfer of hospital between diagnosis and first treatment being surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Co-variate adjusted characteristics predictive for hospital transfer were determined. To adjust for possible treatment by indication bias we used propensity score matching (PSM). Time to treatment in patients with and without hospital transfer was compared.

RESULTS

Among 41,413 patients, 8.5% of all patients transferred to another hospital between diagnosis and first treatment; 4.9% before primary surgery and 24.8% before NAC. Especially young (aged <40 years) patients and those who underwent a mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) were more likely to transfer. The association of mastectomy with IBR with hospital transfer remained when using PSM. Hospital transfer after diagnosis significantly prolonged time to treatment; breast-conserving surgery by 5 days, mastectomy by 7 days, mastectomy with IBR by 9 days and NAC by 1 day.

CONCLUSIONS

While almost 5% of Dutch patients treated with primary surgery transfer hospital after diagnosis and up to 25% for patients treated with NAC, our findings suggest that especially those treated with primary surgery are at risk for additional treatment delay by hospital transfer.

Aesthetic and functional outcome after breast conserving surgery - Comparison between conventional and oncoplastic resection

BACKGROUND

Recent studies implicate that oncoplastic breast cancer surgery provides better aesthetic outcome than conventional resection. Several factors have been associated with poor aesthetic outcome. This study aims to compare patient-reported aesthetic and functional outcome after conventional and oncoplastic resection and to evaluate prognostic factors for poor aesthetic outcome in a population-based setting.

METHODS

637 patients having breast conserving treatment (BCT) due to unilateral primary breast cancer at a single hospital district during 2010 were included. Aesthetic and functional outcome were evaluated using two questionnaires three years after surgery.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were returned by 379 (59%) patients; 293 (77%) of these had conventional and 86 (23%) oncoplastic resection. Patients in oncoplastic resection group had larger tumour diameter (p < 0.001), larger resection specimens (p < 0.001), and more often multifocal tumours (p = 0.032), node positive cancer (p = 0.029) and lower quadrant tumour localization (p = 0.007). Aesthetic outcome according to BCTOS questionnaire was good in 284 (75%) patients; 52 (61%) patients in the oncoplastic group and 230 patients (81%) in the conventional resection group, p < 0.001. Larger tumour diameter (p = 0.033), multifocality (p = 0.022), weight of resection specimen (<0.001) and oncoplastic surgery (p < 0.001) were predicting poor aesthetic outcome, when all patients were included. Tumour multifocality (p = 0.013) remained predictor of poor aesthetic outcome in conventional resection group but not in oncoplastic resection group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction to aesthetic outcome after BCT is high. Conventional resection provides good aesthetic outcome in appropriately selected patients. Oncoplastic resection enables BCT in patients with larger and multifocal tumours with favourable aesthetic outcome.