The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Axillary Clip in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy (ILINA Trial) : A New Tool to Guide the Excision of the Clipped Node After Neoadjuvant Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been improved with the placement of a clip in the positive node prior to treatment. Several methods have been described for clipped node excision during SLNB after NAT. We assessed the feasibility of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided excision of the clipped node during SLNB and investigated whether the accuracy of SLNB is improved. METHODS: After approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee, all breast cancer patients undergoing NAT had an US-visible clip placed in the positive node. The ILINA trial consisted of IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node along with SLNB and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). RESULTS: Forty-six patients had a clip placed in the positive node. In two (4.3%) cases, the clip could not be seen prior to surgery and the patient underwent ALND; however, the clipped node was successfully removed by IOUS-guided excision in 44 patients. Thirty-five patients (79.5%) underwent SLNB along with IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node and ALND, and were subsequently included in the ILINA trial. Nine patients were not included (five patients with SLNB only and four patients with ALND without SLNB). SLNB matched the clipped node in 27 (77%) patients. The false negative rate for the ILINA protocol was 4.1% (95% confidence interval 0.1-21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: IOUS-guided excision of the axillary clipped node after NAT was feasible, safe, and successful in 100% of cases. The ILINA trial is accurate in predicting axillary nodal status after NAT.

Different Prognostic Implications of Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Treatment: Impact of Ki 67 and Site of Response.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) can be used as an independent prognostic factor in neoadjuvant trials. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of Ki 67 expression and site of response on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) across different molecular subtypes of breast cancer following NAC. METHODS: Records from 357 patients who received NAC from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze clinical and pathological factors that influence pCR and DFS. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 45 months (range 12-112). pCR was achieved in 82 patients (23 %). According to molecular subtypes, rates of pCR were significantly higher for patients with HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors (69.4 and 32.7 %, respectively; p < 0.001) compared with other molecular subtypes. pCR was a predictive factor of longer OS and DFS. The hazard ratio for DFS in patients with positive lymph nodes (ypN1) after NAC was 2.48 (95 % confidence interval 1.47-4.19). Multivariate analysis showed that molecular subtype, changes in Ki 67 expression, and axillary lymph node response were significantly predictors of OS and DFS. CONCLUSIONS: pCR in the axilla and posttreatment changes in Ki 67 after NAC are associated with improved survival. Depending on axillary staging before NAC, detection of minimal residual disease-defined as the presence of isolated tumor cells in the SLN after NAC-may confer different prognosis. Further studies are needed to tailor treatments for patients with residual disease after NAC.

Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy Versus Mammographic Wire Localization for Breast Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided lumpectomy in early breast cancer has shown advantages over other techniques. However, the use of IOUS has been less explored after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT). This study aimed to compare IOUS- and wire localization (WL)-guided surgery in breast cancer patients after NAT. METHODS: The study enrolled patients treated with NAT who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) between July 2008 and December 2012. For the patients with a hydrogel marker or residual tumor visible on ultrasound, an IOUS-guided surgery was performed (IOUS group). The patients with a standard marker or hydrogel marker not visible on ultrasound underwent a WL-guided surgery (WL group). RESULTS: The study investigated 214 patients: 145 (67.8 %) in the IOUS group and 69 (32.2 %) in the WL group. The patient and tumor characteristics were comparable between the two groups. For the patients who had a pathologic complete response (pCR) or microscopic disease, the volume excised was lower in the IOUS group (p = 0.03). The rate of reexcision for positive or close margins was similar in the two groups (p = 0.80). After a median follow-up period of 43 months, the local recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with WL surgery, IOUS seems to lower the volume of resection in patients with pCR or minimal microscopic disease after NAT without compromising margins and local recurrences. BCS can easily be achieved with IOUS for patients with a good response after NAT.