Evaluation of surgically excised breast tissue microstructure using wide-field optical coherence tomography.

BACKGROUND: Currently, positive margins at lumpectomy contribute to health care cost, patient anxiety, and treatment delay. Multiple technology solutions are being explored with the aim of lowering re-excision rates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS). We examined wide-field optical coherence tomography (WF-OCT), an innovative adjunct intraoperative imaging tool for tissue visualization of margins. METHODS: This IRB-approved pilot study included women with invasive or in situ carcinoma scheduled for primary BCS. Lumpectomy specimens and any final/revised margins were imaged by optical coherence tomography immediately prior to standard histological processing. The optical coherence tomography used provided two-dimensional, cross-sectional, real-time depth visualization of the margin widths around excised specimens. A volume of images was captured for 10 × 10 cm tissue surface at high resolution (sub-30 µm) to a depth of 2 mm. Integrated interpretation was performed incorporating final pathology linked with the optical image data for correlation. RESULTS: Wide-field optical coherence tomography was performed on 185 tissue samples (50 lumpectomy specimens and 135 additional margin shaves) in 50 subjects. Initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 10, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 14, IDC/DCIS in 22, invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) in 2, ILC/DCIS in 1, and sarcoma in 1. Optical coherence tomography was concordant with final pathology in 178/185 tissue samples for overall accuracy of 86% and 96.2% (main specimen alone and main specimen + shave margins). Of seven samples that were discordant, 57% (4/7) were considered close (DCIS < 2 mm from margin) per final pathology. CONCLUSION: Wide-field optical coherence tomography demonstrated concordance with histology at tissue margins, supporting its potential for use as a real-time adjunct intraoperative imaging tool for margin assessment. Further studies are needed for comprehensive evaluation in the intraoperative setting.

Breast pathology review: does it make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Breast pathology is a challenging field, and previous work has shown discrepancies in diagnoses, even among experts. We set out to determine whether mandatory pathology review changes the diagnosis or surgical management of breast disease. METHODS: Cases were referred for pathology review after patients presented for surgical opinion to the Dubin Breast Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center over the course of 2 years. Surgical pathologists with expertise in breast disease reviewed slides submitted from the primary institution and rendered a second opinion diagnosis. Comparison of these reports was performed for evaluation of major changes in diagnosis and definitive surgical management. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients with 430 biopsy specimens were reviewed. Change in diagnosis was documented in 72 (17 %) of 430 cases and change in surgical management in 41 (10 %). A change in diagnosis was more likely to occur in patients originally diagnosed with benign rather than malignant disease (31 vs. 7 %, p < 0.001). Twelve (7 %) of 169 specimens initially diagnosed as benign were reclassified as malignant. A malignant diagnosis was changed to benign in 4 (2 %) of 261 cases. Change in diagnosis was less common in specimens originating from commercial laboratories than community hospitals or university hospitals (8, 19, 21 %, p = 0.023). Change in management was not dependent on initial institution. Type of biopsy specimen (surgical or core) did not influence diagnostic or management changes. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend considering breast pathology review based on the individual clinical scenario, regardless of initial pathologic diagnosis or originating institution.

Anticipatory psychological distress in women scheduled for diagnostic and curative breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is a central experience for women facing diagnostic and curative breast cancer surgery. PURPOSE: The present study was designed to predict anticipatory distress in 187 women scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy. METHOD: Participants completed questionnaires assessing emotional distress and predictors of this distress (surgery type, worry about the surgical procedure, and worry about what the surgeon will find). RESULTS: The study found that lumpectomy patients experienced greater anticipatory distress than excisional breast biopsy patients on three of the four distress measures (all ps < 0.05) and that worry about what the surgeon might find partially mediated these effects. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that although women awaiting lumpectomy are more distressed than women awaiting biopsy, both groups report substantial distress, and, consequently, psychosocial interventions are recommended for both groups.

Hypnosis decreases presurgical distress in excisional breast biopsy patients.

BACKGROUND: Excisional breast biopsy is associated with presurgical psychological distress. Such distress is emotionally taxing, and may have negative implications for postsurgical side effects and satisfaction with anesthesia. We investigated the ability of a brief hypnosis session to reduce presurgical psychological distress in excisional breast biopsy patients. METHODS: Ninety patients presenting for excisional breast biopsy were randomly assigned to receive either a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session (n = 49, mean age: 46.4 (95% CI: 42.3-50.4)) or a 15-minute presurgery attention control session (n = 41, mean age: 45.0 (95% CI: 40.8-49.2)). The hypnosis session involved suggestions for increased relaxation and decreased distress. The attention control session involved nondirective empathic listening. Presurgery distress was measured using visual analog scales (VAS) and the short version of the Profile of Mood States (SV-POMS). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and chi2 procedures. RESULTS: Groups did not differ in terms of the following: demographics (age, education, ethnicity, marital status, all P's > 0.28); medical variables (presurgery diagnosis, previous excisional biopsy, previous breast cancer, all P's > 0.11); or preintervention distress (SV-POMS P > 0.74) assessed on the day of surgery. Postintervention, and before surgery, patients in the hypnosis group had significantly lower mean values for presurgery VAS emotional upset (16.5 vs 38.2, P < 0.0001, d = .85), VAS depressed mood (6.6 vs 19.9, P < 0.02, d = .67), and SV-POMS anxiety (10.0 vs 5.0, P < 0.0001, d = 0.85); and significantly higher levels for VAS relaxation (75.7 vs 54.2, P < 0.001, d = -0.76) than attention controls. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention can be an effective means of controlling presurgical distress in women awaiting diagnostic breast cancer surgery.

A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective. METHODS: We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review. RESULTS: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.

Sources of anticipatory distress among breast surgery patients.

Surgical consultation concerning the possibility of breast cancer is a distressing experience, and having to take the next step of breast surgery even more so for many women. However, the sources of variability in such presurgical distress are not well understood. Sixty-one women (mean age = 51) were recruited immediately following surgical consultation in which a recommendation of breast surgery (excisional biopsy/lumpectomy) was made. Patients completed measures of distress, worry about cancer and surgery, trait anxiety, optimism and pessimism prior to surgery. Surprisingly, results revealed no effect of surgeon-provided information concerning preliminary diagnosis on patient distress. Rather, worry about what the surgeon might find concerning the breast mass during surgery, worry about having to go through the operative procedures, and patient optimism were the only factors that uniquely contributed to patient distress (p's < 0.05). This study provides a foundation for future clinical interventions to reduce presurgery distress.

Paravertebral block anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair.

Choice of anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair remains a controversial topic. Local anesthesia has been described in the literature as the optimal technique, however general and spinal anesthesia are commonly used in practice despite well-known complications and side effects. The regional technique of paravertebral block has been successfully used at our institution for the operative treatment of breast cancer. Its attributes are prolonged sensory block with minimization of postoperative pain, reduction of nausea and vomiting, shortened hospital stay, patient satisfaction, and rapid return to normal activities. These features are desirable in the practice of ambulatory hernia surgery; hence we initiated the use of thoracic/lumbar paravertebral block for that surgical procedure. Paravertebral block anesthesia was performed on 30 consecutive patients. Block placement took an average of 12.3 minutes, in six cases repeat injection at one or two spinal levels was required due to incomplete blockade. Paravertebral block achieved effective anesthesia in 28 of 30 cases; conversion to general anesthesia was performed for two failed blocks. We are reporting postoperative data on the 28 completed blocks. Supplementation of intravenous sedation or injection of local anesthesia successfully treated transient intraoperative pain in 10 cases. Epidural extension of anesthesia resulting in lower limb numbness and motor weakness delayed the discharge of two patients. There were no other complications of anesthesia and no cases of urinary retention. TIme to onset of pain averaged 15 hours, while duration of sensory block was 13 hours. Patients were prescribed a standing order of naproxen 500 mg B.I.D. for 4 days regardless of pain; supplemental oral narcotic use during the 48 hours following surgery averaged 3.5 tablets, with 6 patients not requiring any narcotic. ninety-six percent of patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery were discharged from the postanesthesia care unit, with an average stay of 2.5 hours. Employed patients returned to work on day 5.5 (range 3-10 days); patients who were not employed returned to regular activities in 5.8 days (range 1-14 days). Eighty-two percent of patients reported being "very satisfied" with the anesthetic technique.

Brief presurgery hypnosis reduces distress and pain in excisional breast biopsy patients.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of women undergo excisional breast biopsies for definitive diagnosis. Not only do these patients experience pain associated with the procedure, but they also endure distress associated with the threat of cancer. Hypnosis has been demonstrated as effective for controlling patients' pain in other surgical settings, but breast surgery patients have received little attention. To determine the impact of brief presurgical hypnosis on these patients' postsurgery pain and distress and to explore possible mediating mechanisms of these effects, 20 excisional breast biopsy patients were randomly assigned to a hypnosis or control group (standard care). Hypnosis reduced postsurgery pain and distress. Initial evidence suggested that the effects of hypnosis were mediated by presurgery expectations.