Proposed clinical pathway for nonoperative management of high-grade pediatric pancreatic injuries based on a multicenter analysis: A pediatric trauma society collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for nonoperative management (NOM) of high-grade pancreatic injuries in children have not been established, and wide practice variability exists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate common clinical strategies across multiple pediatric trauma centers to develop a consensus-based standard clinical pathway. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review was conducted of children with high-grade (American Association of Surgeons for Trauma grade III-V) pancreatic injuries treated with NOM between 2010 and 2015. Data were collected on demographics, clinical management, and outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were treated at 20 pediatric trauma centers. Median age was 9 years (range, 1-18 years). The majority (73%) of injuries were American Association of Surgeons for Trauma grade III, 24% were grade IV, and 3% were grade V. Median time from injury to presentation was 12 hours and median ISS was 16 (range, 4-66). All patients had computed tomography scan and serum pancreatic enzyme levels at presentation, but serial enzyme level monitoring was variable. Pancreatic enzyme levels did not correlate with injury grade or pseudocyst development. Parenteral nutrition was used in 68% and jejunal feeds in 31%. 3Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram was obtained in 25%. An organized peripancreatic fluid collection present for at least 7 days after injury was identified in 59% (42 of 71). Initial management of these included: observation 64%, percutaneous drain 24%, and endoscopic drainage 10% and needle aspiration 2%. Clear liquids were started at a median of 6 days (IQR, 3-13 days) and regular diet at a median of 8 days (IQR 4-20 days). Median hospitalization length was 13 days (IQR, 7-24 days). Injury grade did not account for prolonged time to initiating oral diet or hospital length; indicating that the variability in these outcomes was largely due to different surgeon preferences. CONCLUSION: High-grade pancreatic injuries in children are rare and significant variability exists in NOM strategies, which may affect outcomes and effective resource utilization. A standard clinical pathway is proposed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level V (case series).

Routine Pre-Treatment MRI for Breast Cancer in a Single-Payer Medical Center: Effects on Surgical Choices, Timing and Outcomes.

Introduction: Pre-operative MRI is being used with increasing frequency to evaluate breast cancer patients, but the debate surrounding risks and benefits of this use continues. At our institution, we instituted a standardized protocol for pre-operative MRI. Here, we compare patients seen prior to routine use of MRI to those seen after and examine effects on surgical choices, timing and outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all new invasive breast cancers seen from January 2007 to December 2012. The control group (CG) did not receive MRI, while the MRI group (MRG) underwent MRI according to our pretreatment protocol. Groups were compared with regards to basic demographics, initial surgical choices, need for re-excision, and surgical timing. The electronic medical records of patients in the MRG who underwent mastectomy as their initial surgery were examined closely to determine the main factors leading to their choice of surgery. Finally, correlation between findings on MRI and final surgical pathology was analyzed. Results: Of 282 patients included, 38 were in the CG and 244 in the MRG; the groups were well matched. The MRG had a significantly higher percentage of patients choosing initial mastectomy (MRG: 47.1% vs CG 21.1%, p=0.003). Patients seen in the first 2 years of the study were less likely to choose mastectomy than those enrolled in the latter years (29.2%vs 48.6%, p=0.004). The MRG had a lower chance of return to the operating room for re-excision (15.2% vs 28.9%, p=0.035). The average time from initial imaging to initial surgery was approximately the same between groups (MRG: 39.7 days vs CG 42.1 days, p=0.45) and the MRG actually had shorter time to definitive (margin-negative) surgical management (MRG: 43.5 days vs CG: 50.3 days, p=0.079). One hundred-fifteen patients in the MRG underwent mastectomy as initial surgery. Of these, 64 (55.7%) had no additional findings on MRI and chose mastectomy based on patient preference; 30 patients (26.1%) (29 unilateral, 1 bilateral) had mastectomy because of MRI findings. Of the 31 breasts removed (29 unilateral and 1 bilateral mastectomies) because of MRI findings, 26 (83.9%) had histologic findings that correlated with the MRI findings, while 5 (16.1%) did not. Conclusion: Patients receiving routine pre-treatment MRI had an increased mastectomy rate, but had a lower re-excision rate. We found no delay to initial surgical therapy and, perhaps more importantly, a slight decrease in time to margin-negative surgical therapy in the MRI group. Women choosing mastectomy after MRI did so because of personal preference over half of the time, while MRI findings influenced this choice in 26% of these women. When MRI findings did lead to mastectomy, these findings were confirmed by pathology results in the vast majority of cases.

Analysis of Clinical and Pathologic Factors of Pure, Flat Epithelial Atypia on Core Needle Biopsy to Aid in the Decision of Excision or Observation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) found on breast core needle biopsy (CNB) is controversial. We performed a retrospective review of our institutional experience with FEA to determine if excisional biopsy may be deferred. METHODS: Surgical records from 2009 to 2012 were reviewed for FEA diagnosis. After exclusion for concomitant lesions, CNBs of pure FEA were classified using a previously agreed upon descriptor of "focal" versus "prominent". Data was analyzed with the Fisher's Exact and Student-t test as appropriate. RESULTS: Of 71 CNBs evaluated, pure FEA was identified on 27 CNBs. Final excisional biopsy was benign in 24 of 27 cases (88%) with associated ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) in 3 of 27 cases (11%). Eighteen of 27 (67%) CNBs were classified as focal while 9 (33%) were described as prominent. Zero of the 18 focal patients had a malignancy compared to 3 of the 9 in the prominent group (0% vs 33%, p=0.02). Of the 27 pure FEA CNBs, 6 patients had a personal history of breast carcinoma, five DCIS and one invasive ductal carcinoma. No malignancies were found in the 21 patients without a personal history of breast carcinoma versus three in the patients with a positive history (0/21 v 3/6, p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests those women who have adequate sampling and sectioning of CNBs, with focal, pure FEA on pathology, and are without a personal history of breast cancer may undergo a period of imaging surveillance. Conversely, patients with a history of breast cancer or pure, prominent FEA on CNB disease should proceed to excisional biopsy.