Nationwide Analysis of Locoregional Management for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Males: An NCDB Analysis of the Surgical Approach to DCIS in Males.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the optimal locoregional approach for males with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study examined trends in management and survival for males with DCIS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for males with a diagnosis of DCIS from 2006 to 2017. Patients were categorized by locoregional management. Continuous variables were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and categorical variables by chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to evaluate for predictors of patients receiving partial mastectomy (PM) with radiation. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2017, 711 males with DCIS were identified. Most received mastectomy alone (57.1%). No change was observed in management approach from 2006 to 2017. Patients who underwent mastectomy alone were mostly hormone-positive (95.9% were estrogen-positive, 90.9% were progesterone-positive), although this cohort was least likely to receive hormone therapy (17.2%). Among those who underwent PM with radiation, only 61% of those who were hormone-positive received hormone therapy. Univariable analysis demonstrated that those of black race had lower odds of receiving PM with radiation (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.84), which persisted in the multivariable analysis with control for age and tumor size (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67). Overall survival did not differ significantly between the four treatment methods (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The management approach to male DCIS did not change from 2006 to 2017. Survival did not differ between treatment methods. Demographic and clinicopathologic features, including race, may influence locoregional treatments received, and further studies are needed to further understand this.

Axillary management in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the modern era: A national cancer database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Axillary management for node-positive breast cancer continues to evolve. Data further supporting targeted axillary dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was published in 2016 and may have induced changes in practice. METHODS: Patients included in the National Cancer Database from 2014 to 2017 with clinical T1 to T4 and node-positive disease who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgical axillary management were evaluated. Patients were divided into the following 3 groups: selective axillary dissection, minimal axillary dissection, and maximal axillary dissection, according to surgical axillary management and pathological node status. RESULTS: Patients who underwent selective axillary dissection were younger (52.4 years ± 12.4, P < .0001) compared to maximal axillary dissection (55.1 ± 12.7) and minimal axillary dissection (54.6 ± 12.7). Patients with higher clinical stage more frequently underwent maximal axillary dissection, and those with lower tumor grade more frequently underwent minimal axillary dissection (P < .0001). Community cancer programs were more likely to perform maximal axillary dissection compared to all other types of programs and had the slowest rate of adoption of selective axillary dissection. Integrated Network Cancer Programs had the lowest proportion of maximal axillary dissection performed and the highest proportion of selective axillary dissection. Uninsured patients were more likely to receive maximal axillary dissection, and those with private insurance were more likely to undergo selective axillary dissection (P < .0001). Selective axillary dissection rates increased from 29.8% of procedures in 2016 to 41.5% in 2017, and MaxAD rates decreased from 62.4% in 2016 to 47.9% in 2017. CONCLUSION: Utilization of selective axillary dissection has increased since 2016; however, discrepancies in surgical axillary management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy still exist.

Long-term follow-up of temporary abdominal closure in complex abdomens during liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Temporary abdominal closure is commonly employed in liver transplantation when patient factors make primary fascial closure challenging. However, there is minimal data evaluating long-term survival and patient outcomes after temporary abdominal closure. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing liver transplantation from January 2013 through December 2017 was performed with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were characterized as either requiring temporary abdominal closure or immediate primary fascial closure at the time of liver transplantation. RESULTS: Of 422 patients who underwent 436 liver transplantations, 17.2% (n = 75) required temporary abdominal closure, whereas 82.8% (n = 361) underwent primary fascial closure. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores preoperatively (27 [22-36] vs 23 [20-28], P = .0002), had higher rates of dialysis preoperatively (28.0% vs 12.5%, P = .0007), and were more likely to be hospitalized within 90 days of liver transplantation (64.0% vs 47.5%, P = .0093). On univariable analysis, survival at 1 year was different between the groups (90.9% surviving at 1 year for primary fascial closure versus 82.7% for temporary abdominal closure, P = .0356); however, there was no significant difference in survival at 5 years (83.7% vs 76.0%, P = .11). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in survival after adjusting for multiple factors. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure were more likely to have longer hospital stays (median 16 days [9.75-29.5] vs 8 days [6-14], P < .0001), more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (45.3% vs 32.2%, P = .03), and less likely to be discharged home (36.5% vs 74.2%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary abdominal closure after liver transplantation appears safe and has similar outcomes to primary fascial closure, though it is used more commonly in complex patients.

Surgical management of primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are the second most common malignancy of the pancreas, and their incidence is increasing. PanNETs are a diverse group of diseases which range from benign to malignant, can be sporadic or associated with genetic mutations, and be functional or nonfunctional. In as much, the treatment and management of PanNETs can vary from a "Wait and See" approach to orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Despite this, surgical resection is still the primary treatment modality to achieve cure. This review focuses on the surgical management of PanNETs.