Breast conserving surgery with intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy for low-risk breast cancer: Five-year follow-up of 306 patients.

Recent studies have reported a higher than expected risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) and a single dose of electron beam intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT). This finding was the rationale to perform a retrospective single center cohort study evaluating the oncologic results of consecutive patients treated with BCS and IORT. Women were eligible if they had clinical low-risk (N0, ≤2 cm unifocal, Bloom and Richardson grade 1-2), estrogen receptor-positive and human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative breast cancer. Prior to BCS, pN0 status was determined by sentinel lymph node biopsy. Data on oncologic follow-up were analyzed. Between 2012 and 2019, 306 consecutive patients were treated and analyzed, with a median age of 67 (50-86) years at diagnosis. Median follow-up was 60 (8-120) months. Five-year cumulative risk of IBTR was 13.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.4-17.4). True in field recurrence was present in 3.9% of the patients. In 4.6% of the patients, the IBRT was classified as a local recurrence due to seeding of tumor cells in the cutis or subcutis most likely related to percutaneous biopsy. In 2.9% of the patients, the IBRT was a new outfield primary tumor. Three patients had a regional lymph node recurrence and two had distant metastases as first event. One breast cancer-related death was observed. Estimated 5-year overall survival was 89.8% (95% CI 86.0-93.6). In conclusion, although some of IBTR cases could have been prevented by adaptations in biopsy techniques and patient selection, BCS followed by IORT was associated with a substantial risk of IBTR.

Repeat breast-conserving treatment of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a nationwide survey amongst breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In line with the paradigm to minimize surgical morbidity in patients with primary breast cancer, there is increasing evidence for the safety of a repeat breast-conserving treatment (BCT) of an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) in selected patients. The conditions for the feasibility of a repeat BCT vary widely in literature. In clinical practice, many physicians have ongoing concerns about the oncological safety and possible toxicity of repeat BCT. AIM: To investigate the attitude of Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists towards repeat BCT and to report on their experiences with, objections against and perceived requirements to consider a repeat BCT in case of IBTR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey consisting of a maximum of 26 open and multiple-choice questions about repeat BCT for IBTR was distributed amongst Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Forty-nine surgeons representing 49% of Dutch hospitals and 20 radiation oncologists representing 70% of Dutch radiation oncology centres responded. A repeat BCT was considered feasible in selected cases by 28.7% of breast surgeons and 55% of radiation oncologists. The most important factors to consider a repeat BCT for both groups were the patient's preference to preserve the breast and surgical feasibility of a second lumpectomy. Arguments against a repeat BCT were based on the perceived unacceptable toxicity and cosmesis of a second course of radiotherapy. The technique of preference for re-irradiation would be partial breast irradiation (PBI) according to all radiation oncologists. Differentiating between new primary tumours (NPT) and true recurrences (TR) was reported to be done by 57.1% of breast surgeons and 60% of radiation oncologists. The most important reason to differentiate between NPT and TR was to establish prognosis and to consider whether a repeat BCT would be feasible. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of Dutch breast cancer specialists is considering a repeat BCT feasible in selected cases, at the patient's preference and with partial breast re-irradiation.

Local staging of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: mammography, ultrasound, or MRI?

BACKGROUND: Despite increasingly effective curative breast-conserving treatment (BCT) regimens for primary breast cancer, patients remain at risk for an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). With increasing interest for repeat BCT in selected patients with IBTR, a reliable assessment of the size of IBTR is important for surgical planning. AIM: The primary aim of this study is to establish the performance in size estimation of XMG, US, and breast MRI in patients with IBTR. The secondary aim is to compare the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sizes of IBTR on mammography (XMG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 159 patients were compared to the sizes at final histopathology. The accuracy of the size estimates was addressed using Pearson's coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes were the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI. RESULTS: Both XMG and US significantly underestimated the tumor size by 3.5 and 4.8 mm, respectively, while MRI provided accurate tumor size estimation with a mean underestimation of 1.1 mm. The sensitivity for the detection of multifocality was significantly higher for MRI compared to XMG (25.5% vs. 5.5%). A contralateral malignancy was found in 4.4% of patients, and in 1.9%, it was detected by MRI only. CONCLUSION: The addition of breast MRI to XMG and US in the preoperative workup of IBTR allows for more accurate size estimation. MRI provides a higher sensitivity for the detection of multifocality compared to XMG.

Multifocality in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence - A study in ablative specimens.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and clinical significance of multifocality in ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) are unclear. With growing interest in repeat BCT, this information has become of importance. This study aimed to gain insight in the incidence of multifocality in IBTR, to identify patient- and tumor-related predicting factors and to investigate the prognostic significance of multifocality. METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen patients were included in this analysis. All had an IBTR after BCT and were treated by salvage mastectomy and appropriate adjuvant therapy. Predictive tumor- and patient-related factors for multifocality in IBTR were identified using X2 test and univariate logistic regression analyses. Prognostic outcomes were calculated using Kaplan Meier analysis and compared using the log rank test. RESULTS: Multifocality was present in 50 (22.9%) of IBTR mastectomy specimens. Axillary positivity in IBTR was significantly associated with multifocality in IBTR. Chest wall re-recurrences occurred more often after multifocal IBTR (14% versus 7% after unifocal IBTR, p = 0.120). Regional re-recurrences did not differ significantly between unifocal and multifocal IBTR (8% vs. 6%, p = 0.773). Distant metastasis after salvage surgery occurred more frequently after multifocal IBTR (15% vs. 24%, p = 0.122). Overall survival was 132 months after unifocal IBTR and 112 months after multifocal IBTR (p = 0.197). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of multifocality in IBTR is higher than in primary breast cancer. Axillary positivity in IBTR was associated with a multifocal IBTR. Chest wall re-recurrences and distant metastasis were, although not statistically significant, more prevalent after multifocal IBTR.

Low Risk of Development of a Regional Recurrence After an Unsuccessful Repeat Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Unlike sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the primary setting, the repeat SLNB (rSLNB) in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is challenging, because it is difficult to visualize and/or harvest a sentinel lymph node in every patient. Regional treatments options and safety in terms of regional disease control after such an unsuccessful rSLNB remain unclear. This study assesses factors associated with the performance of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after unsuccessful rSLNB and evaluates the occurrence of regional recurrences. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. In 239 patients, the rSLNB was unsuccessful, of whom 60 patients underwent ipsilateral ALND. RESULTS: A shorter time interval between primary treatment and IBTR, and a primary negative SLNB were significantly associated with a higher probability to be treated with ALND after unsuccessful rSLNB (P < 0.001). The 5-year regional-recurrence rate was 0.0% in the ALND group compared with 3.7% in the group treated without ALND (P = 0.113). Of the 179 patients treated without ALND, after a median follow-up of 5.1 years (range 0.3-13.2), 7 (3.9%) developed a regional recurrence as first event after unsuccessful rSLNB. None of the seven recurrences occurred in the ipsilateral axilla. Univariable analysis showed no factors associated with regional recurrence as first event after unsuccessful rSLNB (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the risk of regional recurrence in patients with an IBTR and an unsuccessful rSLNB is negligible, irrespective of the use of ALND. This suggests that there is no need for additional treatment of the axilla after an unsuccessful rSLNB.

Repeat breast-conserving therapy for ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: A systematic review.

The standard of care for patients with an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is a salvage mastectomy. However, there is growing interest in the feasibility of repeat BCT for these patients. This systematic review contains the latest insights on BCT options for patients with an IBTR after initial BCT. A PubMed literature search was performed for articles on BCT options for IBTR after primary lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy. Weighted estimates were calculated for 5- and 10-year local control, distant metastasis-free and overall survival rates. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, cosmesis and quality of life. In total, 34 studies were eligible for analysis, of which 5 reported on repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone, 10 with mixed populations (BCS ±â€¯RT and/or mastectomy), 18 on repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation (whole-breast or partial) and one on quality of life. The weighted estimates for 5-year overall survival for repeat BCS and repeat BCS followed by reirradiation were 77% and 87%, respectively. Five-year local control was 76% for repeat BCS alone and 89% for repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation. Grade III-IV toxicity rates after re-irradiation varied from 0 to 21%, whereas the cosmesis was excellent-good in 29-100% of patients and unacceptable in 0-18%. Repeat BCS followed by re-irradiation, with either whole breast or partial breast re-irradiation, seems a feasible alternative to mastectomy in case of IBTR, in selected patients. Toxicity rates are low and the cosmetic outcome is good, but the size and follow-up of the published patient series is limited.

A Mixed Program of Psychoeducational and Psychological Rehabilitation for Patients With Bipolar Disorder in a Day Hospital Setting.

The present study describes a new mixed program of psychoeducational and psychological interventions for bipolar patients, applicable during everyday practice. Thirty-two bipolar patients recruited at a psychiatric day-hospital service have been admitted to a program consisting of 30 meetings and 2 follow-ups at 6 and 12 months. The psychoeducational support determined a general improvement of all included patients. At baseline, patients with residual depression had higher Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores than euthymic patients (mean score ± SD: 21.25 ± 3.92 vs. 7.00 ± 2.95, respectively). After psychoeducation sessions, the HDRS scores of euthymic patients remained stable (mean ± SD: 7.00 ± 3.74), whereas the HDRS scores of depressed patients demonstrated a statistically significant improvement (mean ± SD: 14.00 ± 6.72, t = 2.721, p = 0.03). Results of the Connor-Davidson Resilience scale and specifically constructed questionnaire Questionario per la Valutazione della Conoscenza e dell'Apprendimento per il Disturbo Bipolare showed a statistically significant improvement in resilience and insight in all recruited patients. Psychoeducational intervention as adjunctive treatment to pharmacotherapy seems to be very effective in bipolar patients, not only for those in the euthymic phase, but this model could also be extended to patients with an ongoing mild or moderate depressive episode.

Augmentation of light therapy in difficult-to-treat depressed patients: an open-label trial in both unipolar and bipolar patients.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the clinical benefits of bright light therapy (BLT) as an adjunct treatment to ongoing psychopharmacotherapy, both in unipolar and bipolar difficult-to-treat depressed (DTD) outpatients. METHODS: In an open-label study, 31 depressed outpatients (16 unipolar and 15 bipolar) were included to undergo 3 weeks of BLT. Twenty-five completed the treatment and 5-week follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes were evaluated by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). The Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale and the Depression Retardation Rating Scale were used to assess changes in anhedonia and psychomotor retardation, respectively. RESULTS: The adjunctive BLT seemed to influence the course of the depressive episode, and a statistically significant reduction in HDRS scores was reported since the first week of therapy. The treatment was well-tolerated, and no patients presented clinical signs of (hypo)manic switch during the overall treatment period. At the end of the study (after 5 weeks from BLT discontinuation), nine patients (36%, eight unipolar and one bipolar) still showed a treatment response. BLT augmentation also led to a significant improvement of psychomotor retardation. CONCLUSION: BLT combined with the ongoing pharmacological treatment offers a simple approach, and it might be effective in rapidly ameliorating depressive core symptoms of vulnerable DTD outpatients. These preliminary results need to be confirmed in placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind clinical trial on larger samples.