Nodal staging affects adjuvant treatment choices in elderly patients with clinically node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Background: In response to Choosing Wisely recommendations that sentinel lymph node biopsy (slnb) should not be routinely performed in elderly patients with node-negative (cN0), estrogen receptor-positive (er+) breast cancer, we sought to evaluate how nodal staging affects adjuvant treatment in this population. Methods: From a prospective database, we identified patients 70 or more years of age with cN0 breast cancer treated with surgery for er+ her2-negative invasive disease during 2012-2016. We determined rates of, and factors associated with, nodal positivity (pN+), and compared the use of adjuvant radiation (rt) and systemic therapy by nodal status. Results: Of 364 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 331 (91%) underwent slnb, with 75 (23%) being pN+. Axillary node dissection was performed in 11 patients (3%). On multivariate analysis, tumour size was the only factor associated with pN+ (p = 0.007). Nodal positivity rates were 0%, 13%, 23%, 33%, and 27% for lesions preoperatively sized at 0-0.5 cm, 0.5-1 cm, 1.1-2.0 cm, 2.1-5.0 cm, and more than 5.0 cm. Compared with patients assessed as node-negative, those who were pN+ were more likely to receive axillary rt (lumpectomy: 53% vs. 1%, p < 0.001; mastectomy: 43% vs. 2%, p < 0.001), and adjuvant systemic therapy (endocrine: 82% vs. 69%; chemotherapy plus endocrine: 7% vs. 2%, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Of elderly patients with cN0 er+ breast cancer, 23% were pN+ on slnb. Size was the primary predictor of nodal status, and yet significant rates of nodal positivity were observed even in tumours preoperatively sized at 1 cm or less. The use of rt and systemic adjuvant therapies differed by nodal status, although the long-term oncologic implications require further investigation. Multidisciplinary input on a case-by-case basis should be considered before omission of slnb.

Coordination of radiologic and clinical care reduces the wait time to breast cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, a Rapid Access Breast Clinic (rabc) was opened at our urban hospital. Compared with the traditional system (ts), the navigated care through the clinic was associated with a significantly shorter time to surgical consultation. Since 2009, many radiology facilities have introduced facilitated-care pathways for patients with breast pathology. Our objective was to determine if that change in diagnostic imaging pathways had eliminated the advantage in time to care previously shown for the rabc. METHODS: All patients seen in the rabc and the office-based ts in November-December 2012 were included in the analysis. A retrospective chart review tabulated demographic, surgeon, pathology, and radiologic data, including time intervals to care for all patients. The results were compared with data from 2009. RESULTS: In 2012, time from presentation to surgical consultation was less for the rabc group than for the ts group (36 days vs. 73 days, p < 0.001) for both malignant (31 days vs. 55 days, p = 0.008) and benign diagnoses (43 days vs. 79 days, p < 0.001). Comparing the 2012 results with results from 2009, a decline in mean wait time was observed for the ts group (86 days vs. 73 days, p = 0.02). Compared with patients having investigations in the ts, rabc patients with cancer were more likely to undergo surgery within 60 days of presentation (33% vs. 15%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The coordination of radiology and clinical care reduces wait times for diagnosis and surgery in breast cancer. To achieve recommended targets, we recommend implementation of more systematic coordination of care for a breast cancer diagnosis and of navigation to surgeons for patients needing surgical care.