Wait times for breast cancer surgery: effect of magnetic resonance imaging and preoperative investigations on the diagnostic pathway

Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

The use of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after the diagnosis of breast cancer by mammography and/or ultrasound is inconsistent.

METHODS

After conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing preoperative breast MRI versus no MRI, we reconvened to prepare a clinical practice guideline on this topic.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence that MRI improved recurrence, decreased the rates of reoperations (re-excisions or conversion mastectomy), and increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancer, we recommend that preoperative breast MRI should be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients diagnosed with breast cancer for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. Based on stronger evidence, preoperative breast MRI is recommended in patients diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma for whom additional information about disease extent could influence treatment. For both recommendations, the decision to proceed with MRI would be conditional on shared decision-making between care providers and the patient, taking into account the benefits and risks of MRI as well as patient preferences. Based on the opinion of the Working Group, preoperative breast MRI is also recommended in the following more specific situations: (a) to aid in surgical planning of breast conserving surgery in patients with suspected or known multicentric or multifocal disease; (b) to identify additional lesions in patients with dense breasts; (c) to determine the presence of pectoralis major muscle/chest wall invasion in patients with posteriorly located tumours or when invasion of the pectoralis major muscle or chest wall is suspected; (d) to aid in surgical planning for skin/nipple-sparing mastectomies, autologous reconstruction, oncoplastic surgery, and breast conserving surgery with suspected nipple/areolar involvement; and (e) in patients with familial/hereditary breast cancer but who have not had recent breast MRI as part of screening or diagnosis.

Optimizing the Timeliness of Surgical Therapy in Patients with Breast Cancer Undergoing Immediate Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer, coordination of surgical therapy with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) has been found to significantly delay surgical therapy, which in turn can have an adverse effect on patient survival. The objective of this study was to investigate factors that impact the timeliness of surgical therapy in this setting, which may help to optimize the care of patients with breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with breast cancer undergoing surgical therapy for breast cancer and immediate reconstruction were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent surgery ≤ 30 days (group A) and > 30 days (group B) after diagnosis. Multivariate statistical analysis of demographic, disease, surgical, and process of care factors was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 348 cases met inclusion criteria, of which 255 (73.2%) were in group A and 93 (26.7%) were in group B. No significant differences were identified in clinical stage, oncologic procedure, or type of reconstruction. On multivariate analysis, an increased likelihood of undergoing surgery ≤ 30 days of diagnosis was observed, with shorter time intervals between surgical oncologist and plastic surgeon consultations [odds ratio (OR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.6, p = 0.011]. The number of operating days in common between the surgical oncologist and plastic surgeon nor having the same clinic day impacted timeliness.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients may undergo both breast conservation surgery and mastectomy with all major types of immediate reconstruction in a timely manner. Early initiation of plastic surgery referrals and surgeon flexibility to work outside the parameters of institutional schedules may help facilitate the timeliness of surgery.

Temporal Sequencing of Multimodal Treatment in Immediate Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Wait Times: A Regional Canadian Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Treatment of breast cancer requires a multimodal approach with numerous independent specialists. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) adds another layer of coordination to comprehensive breast cancer care. To optimize health outcomes for patients seeking IBR, it is essential to efficiently coordinate the temporal sequence of care modalities inclusive of reconstruction. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, patients undergoing IBR following complete or partial mastectomy at one health centre from 2015 to 2021 were included. Patients were categorized into two main groups defined by the first treatment modality received, namely surgery first and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Primary outcome measures were wait times for diagnostic investigations, initiation of treatment, and transitions between therapeutic modalities. Results: Of 195 patients, 158 underwent surgery first, and 37 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median wait time from first consultation to first treatment initiated in the neoadjuvant cohort was shorter by 11.5 days as compared to the Surgery First cohort (21.5 +/− 19 vs 33.0 +/− 28 days; P = 0.001). Twenty-three (82%) of the surgery first and 11 (38%) of the neoadjuvant cohort patients waited longer than 8 weeks for initiation of radiotherapy ( P = 0.001). Following surgical intervention, the majority of patients failed to meet target benchmarks for transition to chemotherapy ( n = 25, 53%) and transition to radiotherapy ( n = 26, 93%; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing IBR may incur delays in the setting of upfront surgery and in transitioning to adjuvant therapies. In the setting of breast reconstruction, further efforts are required to achieve target wait-times in multimodal breast cancer care.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Surgery Delay Within a Coordinated Multihospital Community Health System: When Does Surgical Delay Impact Outcome?

BACKGROUND

Multiple factors influence the time elapsed between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgical extirpation of the primary tumor. The disease-free interval between resection of primary breast cancer and first evidence of recurrence is predictive of mortality. We aimed to determine patient, disease, and treatment factors associated with a delay in time to surgery (TTS) and identify the point when prolonged TTS negatively impacts disease-free survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer registry and electronic medical record data for patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery as first course of treatment during 2006-2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing surgery in ≤30 vs. 31-60 vs. >60 days of initial diagnosis were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate impact of time from breast cancer diagnosis to definitive therapeutic surgery on breast cancer recurrence or death (all-cause).

RESULTS

Overall, 4462 patients were analyzed, 43.4% of whom underwent surgery beyond 30 days. The following factors were associated with TTS >30 days: age <50, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, commercial or health exchange/Medicaid insurance, diagnosis of noninvasive disease (i.e., ductal carcinoma in situ), had breast magnetic resonance imaging before definitive surgery, underwent total mastectomy (especially if immediate reconstruction, particularly if autologous, was performed), and did not receive adjuvant therapies (P < .001 for all). After adjusting for relevant variables, significant predictors of recurrence/death included a TTS >60 days, increased patient age, higher breast cancer stage, and triple-negative biomarker expression.

CONCLUSION

Risk of recurrence or death is not compromised until TTS exceeds 60 days after initial breast cancer diagnosis.

Factors influencing the delivery of cancer pathways: a summary of the literature

PURPOSE

The study aims to summarise the literature on cancer care pathways at the diagnostic and treatment phases. The objectives are to find factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways; to highlight any interrelating factors; to find gaps in the literature concerning areas of research; to summarise the strategies and recommendations implemented in the studies.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The study used a qualitative approach and developed a causal loop diagram to summarise the current literature on cancer care pathways, from screening and diagnosis to treatment. A total of 46 papers was finally included in the analysis, which highlights the recurring themes in the literature.

FINDINGS

The study highlights the myriad areas of research applied to cancer care pathways. Factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways were classified into different albeit interrelated themes. These include access barriers to care, hospital emergency admissions, fast track diagnostics, delay in diagnosis, waiting time to treatment and strategies to increase system efficiency.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

As far as the authors know, this is the first study to present a visual representation of the complex relationship between factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways.

Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score for characterizing lesions on breast MRI with comparison to a multiparametric classification system

PURPOSE

To determine the diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score and to compare it with the BI-RADS-based multiparametric classification system (MCS).

METHOD

Two breast radiologists, blinded to the clinical and pathological information, separately evaluated a database of 499 consecutive patients with structural 3.0 T breast MRI and 697 histopathologically verified lesions. The Kaiser scores and corresponding MCS categories were recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of the Kaiser score and the MCS categories to differentiate benign from malignant lesions were calculated. The interobserver reproducibility and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) parameters were analysed.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of the MCS were 100 % and 12 %, respectively, and those of the Kaiser score were 98.5 % and 34.8 % for reader 1 and 98.7 % and 47.5 % for reader 2. The area under the ROC-curve was 85.9 and 87.6 for readers 1 and 2. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was excellent at 0.882. Reader 1 upgraded six lesions from BI-RADS 3 to a Kaiser score of >4, and reader 2 upgraded seven lesions. When applying the Kaiser score to 158 benign lesions readers 1 and 2 would have reduced the biopsy rate by 22.8 % and 35.4 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaiser score showed high diagnostic accuracy with excellent interobserver reproducibility. The MCS had perfect sensitivity but low specificity. Although the Kaiser score had slightly lower sensitivity, its specificity was 3-4 times greater than that of the MCS. Thus, the Kaiser score has the potential to considerably reduce the biopsy rate for true negative lesions.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging: are those who need it getting it?

BACKGROUND

Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging (mri), a very sensitive but less-specific tool for breast investigation, remain controversial, and accessibility is limited. The purposes of our study were to determine the proportion of breast mri exams performed for various clinical indications, to assess the wait times for breast mri, and to create a list of evidence-based indications for breast mri.

METHODS

The indications for breast mri exams performed in September 2013 at our academic centre were audited. A multidisciplinary meeting held in May 2014 established a list of evidence-based indications for breast mri, after which, in September 2014 and 2015, breast mri exams were re-audited for clinical indications, and pending requests were calculated.

RESULTS

In September 2013, surveillance of women with a prior diagnosis of breast cancer represented 21% of breast mri exams (24 of 113), with preoperative staging representing 18% of exams (20 of 113) and high-risk screening representing 12% (13 of 113). Of pending mri requests, 230 were within the recommended delay period, and 457 exceeded the recommended delay. After elaboration of evidence-based guidelines, repeat audits in September 2014 and September 2015 showed that mri performed for women with a prior breast cancer diagnosis represented 23% (33 of 141) and 7% (10 of 143) of exams respectively, with preoperative staging having declined to 9% (13 of 141) and 11% (16 of 143) of exams, and high-risk screening having increased to 36% (51 of 141) and 46% (66 of 143) of exams. Overall, wait times were improved for all breast mri indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Through multidisciplinary discussion, we actualized a list of breast mri indications, prioritized requests more adequately, and improved wait times.

Biomarker discovery to improve prediction of breast cancer survival: using gene expression profiling, meta-analysis, and tissue validation

Purpose

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide in women. The molecular mechanism for human breast cancer is unknown. Gene microarray has been widely used in breast cancer research to identify clinically relevant molecular subtypes as well as to predict prognosis survival. So far, the valuable multigene signatures in clinical practice are unclear, and the biological importance of individual genes is difficult to detect, as the described signatures virtually do not overlap. Early prognosis of this disease, breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), is vital in breast surgery.

Methods

Thus, this study reports gene expression profiling in large breast cancer cohorts from Gene Expression Omnibus, including GSE29044 (N=138) and GSE10780 (N=185) test series and four independent validation series GSE21653 (N=266), GSE20685 (N=327), GSE26971 (N=276), and GSE12776 (N=204). Significantly differentially expressed genes in human breast IDC and breast DCIS were detected by transcriptome microarray analysis.

Results

We created a set of three genes (MAMDC2, TSHZ2, and CLDN11) that were significantly correlated with disease-free survival of breast cancer patients using a univariate Cox regression model (significance level P<0.01) in a meta-analysis. Based on the risk score of the three genes, the test series patients could be separated into low-risk and high-risk groups with significantly different survival times. This signature was validated in the other three cohorts. The prognostic value of this three-gene signature was confirmed in the internal validation series and another four independent breast cancer data sets. The prognostic impact of one of the three genes, CLDN11, was confirmed by immunohistochemistry. CLDN11 was significantly overexpressed in human breast IDC as compared with normal breast tissues and breast DCIS.

Conclusion

Using novel gene expression profiling together with a meta-analysis validation approach, we have identified a three-gene signature with independent prognostic impact. Furthermore, CLDN11 may offer a biomarker to predict prognosis as well as a new target for prognostic and therapeutic intervention for human breast IDC.

Tumor growth rate of invasive breast cancers during wait times for surgery assessed by ultrasonography

Several studies suggest that delay in the surgical treatment of breast cancer is significantly associated with lower survival. This study evaluated the tumor growth rate (TGR) of invasive breast cancers during wait times for surgery quantitatively using ultrasonography (US) and identified clinicopathologic factors associated with TGR.This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Between August 2013 and September 2014, a total of 323 unifocal invasive breast cancers in 323 women with serial US images at the time of diagnosis and surgery were included. Tumor diameters and volumes were measured using 2-orthogonal US images. TGR during wait times for surgery was quantified as specific growth rates (SGR; %/day) and was compared with clinicopathologic variables using univariate and multivariate analyses.Median time from diagnosis to surgery was 31 days (range, 8-78 days). Maximum tumor diameters and volumes at the time of surgery (mean, 15.6 mm and 1.6 cm) were significantly larger than at diagnosis (14.7 mm and 1.3 cm) (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, surrogate molecular subtype was a significant independent factor of SGR (P = 0.001); triple negative cancers showed the highest SGR (1.003%/day) followed by HER2-positive (0.859 %/day) and luminal cancers (luminal B, 0.208 %/day; luminal A, 0.175%/day) (P < 0.001). Clinical T stage was more frequently upgraded in nonluminal (triple negative, 18% [12/67]; HER2-positive, 14% [3/22]) than luminal cancers (luminal B, 3% [1/30]; luminal A, 2% [4/204]) (P < 0.001).Invasive breast cancers with aggressive molecular subtypes showed faster TGR and more frequent upgrading of clinical T stage during wait times for surgery.

Improving patient flow and timeliness in the diagnosis and management of breast abnormalities: the impact of a rapid diagnostic unit

BACKGROUND

Efforts to streamline the diagnosis and treatment of breast abnormalities are necessary to limit patient anxiety and expedite care. In the present study, we examined the effect of a rapid diagnostic unit (rdu) on wait times to clinical investigations and definitive treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective before-after series, each considering a 1-year period, examined consecutive patients with suspicious breast lesions before and after initiation of the rdu. Patient consultations, clinical investigations, and lesion characteristics were captured from time of patient referral to initiation of definitive treatment. Outcomes included time (days) to clinical investigations, to delivery of diagnosis, and to management. Groups were compared using the Fisher exact test or Student t-test.

RESULTS

The non-rdu group included 287 patients with 164 invasive breast carcinomas. The rdu group included 260 patients with 154 invasive carcinomas. The rdu patients had more single visits for biopsy (92% rdu vs. 78% non-rdu, p < 0.0001). The rdu group also had a significantly shorter wait time from initial consultation to delivery of diagnosis (mean: 2.1 days vs. 16.7 days, p = 0.0001) and a greater chance of receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (37% vs. 24%, p = 0.0106). Overall time from referral to management remained statistically unchanged (mean: 53 days with the rdu vs. 50 days without the rdu, p = 0.3806).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of a rdu appears to reduce wait times to definitive diagnosis, but not to treatment initiation, suggesting that obstacles to care delivery can occur at several points along the diagnostic trajectory. Multipronged efforts to reduce system-related delays to definitive treatment are needed.

Implementation of a Breast/Reconstruction Surgery Coordinator to Reduce Preoperative Delays for Patients Undergoing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (MIR) requires coordination between breast and reconstructive surgical teams, leading to increased preoperative delays that may adversely impact patient outcomes and satisfaction. Our cancer center established a target of 28 days from initial consultation with the breast surgeon to MIR. We sought to determine if a centralized breast/reconstructive surgical coordinator (BRC) could reduce care delays.

METHODS

A 60-day pilot to evaluate the impact of a BRC on timeliness of care was initiated at our cancer center. All reconstructive surgery candidates were referred to the BRC, who had access to surgical clinic and operating room schedules. The BRC worked with both surgical services to identify the earliest surgery dates and facilitated operative bookings. The median time to MIR and the proportion of MIR cases that met the time-to-treatment goal was determined. These results were compared with a baseline cohort of patients undergoing MIR during the same time period (January to March) in 2013 and 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients were referred to the BRC (62% cancer, 21% neoadjuvant, 17% prophylactic) during the pilot period. Focusing exclusively on patients with a cancer diagnosis, an 18.5% increase in the percentage of cases meeting the target (P = .04) and a 7-day reduction to MIR (P = .02) were observed.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in time to MIR was achieved through the implementation of the BRC. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and assess the impact the BRC has on operational efficiency and workflows.

Variation in Additional Breast Imaging Orders and Impact on Surgical Wait Times at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

In the multidisciplinary care model, breast imagers frequently provide second-opinion reviews of imaging studies performed at outside institutions. However, the need for additional imaging and timeliness of obtaining these studies has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the frequency of additional imaging orders by breast surgeons and to evaluate the impact of this supplementary imaging on timeliness of surgery.

METHODS

We identified 2489 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent first definitive surgery (FDS) at our comprehensive cancer center between 2011 and 2013. The number of breast-specific imaging studies performed for each patient between initial consultation and FDS was obtained. χ (2) tests were used to quantify the proportion of patients undergoing additional imaging by surgeon. Interval time between initial consultation and additional imaging and/or biopsy was calculated. The delay of additional imaging on time to FDS was assessed by t test.

RESULTS

Of 2489 patients, 615 (24.7 %) had at least one additional breast-specific imaging study performed between initial consultation and FDS, with 222 patients undergoing additional biopsies (8.9 %). The proportion of patients receiving imaging tests by breast surgeon ranged from 15 to 39 % (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving additional imaging had statistically longer wait times to FDS for BCT (21.4-28.5 days, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variability exists in the utilization of additional breast-specific imaging and in the timeliness of obtaining these tests among breast surgeons. Further research is warranted to assess the sources and impact of this variation on patient care, cost, and outcomes.