Timeliness of Breast Diagnostic Imaging and Biopsy in Practice: 15 Years of Collecting, Comparing, and Defining Quality Breast Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The literature lacks well-established benchmarks for expected time between screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and then to core needle breast biopsy. METHODS: Timeliness of diagnostic imaging workup was evaluated using aggregate data from 2005 to 2019 submitted to The National Quality Measures for Breast Centers (NQMBC). RESULTS: A total of 419 breast centers submitted data for 1,805,515 patients on the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging. The overall time was 7 days with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentile values of 5, 10, and 13.5 days, respectively. The average time in business days decreased from 9.1 to 7.1 days (p < 0.001) over the study period with the greatest gains in poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers and centers in the Midwest had significantly shorter time to diagnostic imaging. Time from diagnostic imaging to core needle biopsy was submitted by 406 facilities representing 386,077 patients. The average time was 6 business days, with 75th, 25th, and 10th percentiles of 4, 9, and 13.7 days, respectively. Time to biopsy improved from a mean of 9.0 to 6.3 days (p < 0.001) with the most improvement in the poorest-performing quartiles. Screening centers, centers in the Midwest, and centers in metropolitan areas had significantly shorter time to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: In a robust dataset, the time from screening mammogram to diagnostic imaging and from diagnostic imaging to biopsy decreased from 2005 to 2019. On average, patients could expect to have diagnostic imaging and biopsies within 1 week of abnormal results. Monitoring and comparing performance with reported data may improve quality in breast care.

Current Challenges and Perspectives in Breast Cancer in Elderly Women: The Senologic International Society (SIS) Survey.

Objective: Mammographic screening and management of breast cancer (BC) in elderly women are controversial and continue to be an important health problem. To investigate, through members of the Senologic International Society (SIS), the current global practices in BC in elderly women, highlighting topics of debate and suggesting perspectives. Materials and Methods: The questionnaire was sent to the SIS network and included 55 questions on definitions of an elderly woman, BC epidemiology, screening, clinical and pathological characteristics, therapeutic management in elderly women, onco-geriatric assessment and perspectives. Results: Twenty-eight respondents from 21 countries and six continents, representing a population of 2.86 billion, completed and submitted the survey. Most respondents considered women 70 years and older to be elderly. In most countries, BC was often diagnosed at an advanced stage compared to younger women, and age-related mortality was high. For this reason, participants recommended that personalized screening be continued in elderly women with a long life expectancy.In addition, this survey highlighted that geriatric frailty assessment tools and comprehensive geriatric evaluations needed to be used more and should be developed to avoid undertreatment. Similarly, multidisciplinary meetings dedicated to elderly women with BC should be encouraged to avoid under- and over-treatment and to increase their participation in clinical trials. Conclusion: Due to increased life expectancy, BC in elderly women will become a more important field in public health. Therefore, screening, personalized treatment, and comprehensive geriatric assessment should be the cornerstones of future practice to avoid the current excess of age-related mortality. This survey described, through members of the SIS, a global picture of current international practices in BC in elderly women.

New Frontiers for Fairer Breast Cancer Care in a Globalized World.

In early 2020, the book "Breast cancer: Global Quality Care" was published by Oxford University Press. In the year since then, publications, interviews (by ecancer), presentations, webinars, and virtual congress have been organized to disseminate further the main message of the project: "A call for Fairer Breast Cancer Care for all Women in a Globalized World." Special attention is paid to increasing the "value-based healthcare" putting the patient in the center of the care pathway and sharing information on high-quality integrated breast cancer care. Specific recommendations are made considering the local resource facilities. The multidisciplinary breast conference is considered "the jewel in the crown" of the integrated practice unit, connecting multiple specializations and functions concerned with patients with breast cancer. Management and coordination of medical expertise, facilities, and their interfaces are highly recommended. The participation of two world-leading cancer research programs, the CONCORD program and Breast Health Global Initiative, in this project has been particularly important. The project is continuously under review with feedback from the faculty. The future plan is to arrive at an openaccess publication that is freely available to all interested people. This project is designed to help ease the burden and suffering of women with breast cancer across the globe.

A Three-Dimensional Bioabsorbable Tissue Marker for Volume Replacement and Radiation Planning: A Multicenter Study of Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes for 818 Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of the tumor bed after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) ensures appropriate radiation to the tumor bed while minimizing normal tissue exposure. The BioZorb® three-dimensional (3D) bioabsorbable tissue marker provides a reliable target for radiation therapy (RT) planning and follow-up evaluation while serving as a scaffold to maintain breast contour. METHODS: After informed consent, 818 patients (826 breasts) implanted with the BioZorb® at 14 U.S. sites were enrolled in a national registry. All the patients were prospectively followed with the BioZorb® implant after BCS. The data collected at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months included all demographics, treatment parameters, and provider/patient-assessed cosmesis. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 18.2 months (range, 0.2-53.4 months). The 30-day breast infection rate was 0.5 % of the patients (n = 4), and re-excision was performed for 8.1 % of the patients (n = 66), whereas 2.6 % of the patients (n = 21) underwent mastectomy. Two patients (0.2 %) had local recurrence. The patient-reported cosmetic outcomes at 6, 12, and 24 months were rated as good-to-excellent by 92.4 %, 90.6 %, and 87.3 % of the patients, respectively and similarly by the surgeons. The radiation oncologists reported planning of target volume (PTV) reduction for 46.2 % of the patients receiving radiation boost, with PTV reduction most commonly estimated at 30 %. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the first large multicenter study of 818 patients implanted with the BioZorb® tissue marker during BCS. Radiation oncologists found that the device yielded reduced PTVs and that both the patients and the surgeons reported good-to-excellent long-term cosmetic outcomes, with low adverse effects. The BioZorb® 3D tissue marker is a safe adjunct to BCS and may add benefits for both surgeons and radiation oncologists.

Breast Cancer: global quality care optimizing care delivery with existing financial and personnel resources.

Our vision about breast cancer quality care within a global health framework was recently published by Oxford University Press. The aim of our work was to reflect on the potential to achieve a world-wide improvement in quality care, assessing value for money. The population-based survival estimates from the CONCORD programme and the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) are valuable tools for this global effort. Because cancer care delivery is becoming unsustainable in many countries assessing healthcare value for the cost is becoming increasingly important. Recommendations are made for better global quality care for patients with breast cancer.

Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Women with personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are currently recommended to receive annual mammography for surveillance of breast cancer recurrence or new primary. However, given issues in accuracy with mammography, there is a need for evolving evidence-based surveillance recommendations with supplemental imaging. In this systematic review, we compiled and compared existing studies that describe the test performance of surveillance breast MRI among women with PHBC. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH terms for studies (2000-2019) that described the diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI in women with PHBC. Search results were reviewed and included based on PICOTS criteria; quality of included articles was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of single proportions was conducted for diagnostic characteristics of breast MRI, including tests of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Our review included 11 articles in which unique cohorts were studied, comprised of a total of 8338 women with PHBC and 12,335 breast MRI done for the purpose of surveillance. We predict intervals (PI) for cancer detection rate per 1000 examinations (PI 9-15; I2 = 10%), recall rate (PI 5-31%; I2 = 97%), sensitivity (PI 58-95%; I2 = 47%), specificity (PI 76-97%; I2 = 97%), and PPV3 (PI 16-40%; I2 = 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies addressing performance of breast MRI are variable and limited in population-based studies. The summary of evidence to date is insufficient to recommend for or against use of breast MRI for surveillance among women with PHBC.

Increasing Role of Oncoplastic Surgery for Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goals of surgery for breast cancer have remained the same over the years, to eliminate breast cancer from the breast with the least degree of deformity. With the current expectation of long-term survival after breast cancer treatment, more attention has turned to the cosmetic result of the surgical treatment. Whether lumpectomy or mastectomy, the need for aesthetic improvement was recognized by surgeons both in and outside the USA. RECENT FINDINGS: Oncoplastic surgery combines the skills of the cancer surgeon with those of the plastic surgeon. Sometimes, this means a team approach with a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon both performing their mutual skills for the patient. Other times, the properly trained breast surgeon may perform some of the plastic techniques at the time of cancer surgery. Breast surgeons are rapidly gaining the ability to improve the post-cancer treatment appearance. To simplify the classification of oncoplastic techniques, we have used lower level, upper level, and highest level. The assignment of techniques to levels is based on both the technique and the surgeon's training and experience. Much data has accumulated demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the "aesthetic cancer cure." We describe the development of oncoplastic surgery, the techniques available, matching the right candidate with the right technique, and some comments about the future. It is clear from both clinical benefit and patient satisfaction that oncoplastic breast cancer procedures are here to stay. Plastic surgeons will likely focus on the upper- and highest-level procedures while breast/general surgeons will learn lower-level procedures and some of upper-level procedures as needed by their locale. Opportunities to educate breast/general surgeons in these techniques will continue to increase over the next several years. Formal education in oncoplastic surgery during breast fellowships will be necessary to catch up with the rest of the surgical world outside the USA.

Impact of Breast Center Accreditation on Compliance with Breast Quality Performance Measures at Commission on Cancer-Accredited Centers.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) is associated with improved performance on six breast quality measures pertaining to adjuvant treatment, needle/core biopsy, and breast conservation therapy rates at Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers. METHODS: National Cancer Database 2015 data were retrospectively reviewed to compare patients treated at CoC centers with and without NAPBC accreditation for compliance on six breast cancer quality measures. Mixed effects modeling determined performance on the quality measures adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors. RESULTS: Of 1308 CoC facilities, 484 (37%) were NAPBC-accredited and 111,547 patients (48%) were treated at NAPBC centers. More than 80% of patients treated at both NAPBC and non-NAPBC centers received care in compliance with breast quality measures. NAPBC centers achieved significantly higher performance on four of the five quality measures than non-NAPBC centers at the patient level and on five of six measures at the facility level. For two measures, needle/core biopsy before surgical treatment of breast cancer and breast conservation therapy rate of 50%, NAPBC centers were twice as likely as non-NAPBC centers to perform at the level expected by the CoC (respectively odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.08, p < 0.0001; and OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.94-2.15, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While NAPBC accreditation at CoC centers is associated with higher performance on breast quality measures, the majority of patients at all centers receive guideline-concordant care. Future studies will determine whether higher performance translates into improved oncologic and patient-reported outcomes.

National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers Demonstrates Improved Compliance with Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy Quality Measure.

BACKGROUND: The National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) was established in 2008 by the American College of Surgeons as a quality-improvement program for patients with breast disease. An NAPBC quality measure states post-mastectomy patients with ≥4 positive lymph nodes should receive lymph node radiation therapy (PMRT). Our objective was to examine how NAPBC accreditation has affected compliance with this quality measure. STUDY DESIGN: Women who underwent mastectomy at either an NAPBC-accredited center or a Commission on Cancer-only accredited hospital were identified (2006 to 2013) in the National Cancer Data Base. The NAPBC centers accredited from 2009 to 2011 were included in the analysis. Patients were nested within centers using a mixed effects model to identify PMRT rates at each center before and after accreditation, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Of 34,752 patients from 477 NAPBC-accredited centers and 958 Commission on Cancer-only accredited hospitals who underwent mastectomy with ≥4 positive lymph nodes, 21,638 patients received PMRT during the study period (62.3%). The NAPBC centers yielded a significantly higher rate of PMRT than Commission on Cancer hospitals (66.0% vs 59.2%; p < 0.001). For each year of accreditation (2009 to 2011), centers had significantly higher rates of radiation in the accreditation year compared with the year before accreditation (p < 0.001). Within those centers, the rate of radiation increased post-accreditation in each accreditation year (2009: 62.1% to 71.9%; 2010: 65.5% to 73.2%; 2011: 67.5% to 70.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The NAPBC accreditation is associated with higher PMRT rates and better adherence to the PMRT quality measure. Future studies with more centers and longer follow-up are needed to determine whether this trend continues.

A Phase II Trial Exploring the Success of Cryoablation Therapy in the Treatment of Invasive Breast Carcinoma: Results from ACOSOG (Alliance) Z1072.

BACKGROUND: Cryoablation is a well-established technique to treat fibroadenomas. Pilot studies suggest this could be an effective non-surgical treatment for breast cancer. American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1072 is a phase II trial exploring the effectiveness of cryoablation in the treatment of breast cancers. METHODS: The primary endpoint of Z1072 was the rate of complete tumor ablation, defined as no remaining invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on pathologic examination of the targeted lesion. A secondary objective was to evaluate the negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine residual IBC or DCIS. Eligible patients included those with unifocal invasive ductal breast cancer ≤2 cm, with <25 % intraductal component and tumor enhancement on MRI. A total of 19 centers contributed 99 patients, of which 86 patients (87 breast cancers) were evaluable for data analysis. RESULTS: Final pathology results, regardless of whether residual IBC/DCIS was in the targeted ablation zone or elsewhere in the breast, showed successful ablation in 66/87 (75.9 %) cancers. The 90 % confidence interval for the estimate of successful cryoablation was 67.1-83.2, with the one-sided lower-sided 90 % CI of 69.0. The negative predictive value of MRI was 81.2 % (90 % CI 71.4-88.8). When multifocal disease outside of the targeted cryoablation zone was not defined as an ablation failure, 80/87 (92 %) of the treated cancers had a successful cryoablation. CONCLUSION: Further studies with modifications on the Z1072 protocol could be considered to evaluate the role for cryoablation as a non-surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer.

Toolbox to Reduce Lumpectomy Reoperations and Improve Cosmetic Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: Multiple recent reports have documented significant variability of reoperation rates after initial lumpectomy for breast cancer. To address this issue, a multidisciplinary consensus conference was convened during the American Society of Breast Surgeons 2015 annual meeting. METHODS: The conference mission statement was to "reduce the national reoperation rate in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery for cancer, without increasing mastectomy rates or adversely affecting cosmetic outcome, thereby improving value of care." The goal was to develop a toolbox of recommendations to reduce the variability of reoperation rates and improve cosmetic outcomes. Conference participants included providers from multiple disciplines involved with breast cancer care, as well as a patient representative. Updated systematic reviews of the literature and invited presentations were sent to participants in advance. After topic presentations, voting occurred for choice of tools, level of evidence, and strength of recommendation. RESULTS: The following tools were recommended with varied levels of evidence and strength of recommendation: compliance with the SSO-ASTRO Margin Guideline; needle biopsy for diagnosis before surgical excision of breast cancer; full-field digital diagnostic mammography with ultrasound as needed; use of oncoplastic techniques; image-guided lesion localization; specimen imaging for nonpalpable cancers; use of specialized techniques for intraoperative management, including excisional cavity shave biopsies and intraoperative pathology assessment; formal pre- and postoperative planning strategies; and patient-reported outcome measurement. CONCLUSIONS: A practical approach to performance improvement was used by the American Society of Breast Surgeons to create a toolbox of options to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcomes.

The role of the American College of Surgeons' cancer program accreditation in influencing oncologic outcomes.

The multidisciplinary Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC), administered by the American College of Surgeons (ACoS), defines evidence and consensus-based standards, require an operational infrastructure, collect high quality cancer data, and validate compliance with standards through external peer review. A survey of our constituents confirms a high level of agreement that accreditation is regarded as important in improving oncologic outcomes through compliance with standards that include continuous quality improvement.

What currently defines a breast center? Initial data from the national accreditation program for breast centers.

PURPOSE: The definition of a "breast center" varies significantly, ranging from hospital-based or free-standing comprehensive programs to private subspecialty practices with patient resources in close proximity. This study analyzes the 2-year data of the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) to assess the demographics of the types of programs seeking breast center (BC) accreditation. The results of a postaccreditation survey are also analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All data (ie, Survey Application Record, on-site surveyors' reports, postaccreditation survey) for programs applying for accreditation between October 31, 2008, and October 31, 2010, were entered into a database at the American College of Surgeons headquarters. Analysis was conducted with SPSS v.19 and Microsoft Excel 2007. RESULTS: During the initial 2-year period, 238 centers were surveyed across 41 states. With regard to the 27 standards and 17 BC components, 68% of centers had no deficiencies, 28% had ≤ 10% deficiencies, 3% had deficiencies in 11% to 29% of standards, and 2% had ≥ 30% deficiencies. The most common standards with noncompliance were accreditation for ultrasound-guided biopsy (standard 11), stereotactic biopsy (standard 10), and accrual onto clinical trials (standard 3.2). The only BC component found to be absent was survivorship program (1%). Desciptive categories were as follows: 81.5% were hospital-based centers, 13.5% were free-standing facilities, 2.5% were group practices, and 3% were "other." There were no significant associations between descriptive category and full accreditation versus contingency or failure, or deficiencies in any one standard (all Ps > .05). On the basis of responses to the postaccreditation survey, 76% admitted making significant changes before the survey process. CONCLUSION: This initial analysis of the NAPBC 2-year data suggests that a wide variety of BC models adequately provide a high level of care and services for patients across the nation.

Can we measure the quality of breast surgical care?

Many studies have demonstrated gaps in healthcare quality for all medical and surgical specialties including breast surgical care. How to optimally measure and improve quality has generated debate at the local, state, and national level. Attempts to judge medical performance by private companies using non-risk-adjusted administrative databases may not be accurate and may unfairly penalize surgical care. An overview of concepts to measure and improve quality of breast cancer care is presented with specific examples relevant to breast surgeons. Breast surgeons and their professional organizations need to take ownership of quality measure programs because others will surely do so if we do not. Participation in one or more of these programs is beneficial because peer performance comparison allows identification of potential areas for individual or institutional improvement and demonstrates the commitment of breast surgeons to quality improvement. This commitment may gain even greater importance if trends continue toward performance-based physician payment, patient steerage, licensure, and board certification.