Comparison of Clinical Breast Exam to Breast MRI Surveillance in Patients Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly being performed for patients with breast cancer. However, optimal postoperative surveillance has not been defined. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database identified patients with in-situ and invasive cancer who underwent NSM between 2007-2021. Clinical data on postoperative breast surveillance and interventions were collected. Patients who had MRI surveillance versus clinical breast exam (CBE) alone were compared with respect to tumor characteristics, recurrence, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 483 NSMs were performed on 399 patients. 255 (63.9%) patients had invasive ductal carcinoma, 31 (7.8%) invasive lobular carcinoma, 92 (23.1%) DCIS, 6 (1.5%) mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma, 9 (2.3%) others, and 6 (1.5%) unknown. Postoperatively, 265 (66.4%) patients were followed with CBE alone and 134 (33.6%) had surveillance MRIs. At a median follow-up of 33 months, 20 patients (5.0%) developed in-breast recurrence, 6 patients had (1.5%) an axillary recurrence, and 28 with (7.0%) distant recurrence. 14 (53.8%) LRR were detected in the CBE group and 12 (46.2%) were detected in the MRI group (P = .16). Overall survival (OS) was 99%, with no difference in OS between patients who had CBE alone versus MRI (P = .46). MRI was associated with higher biopsy rates compared to CBE alone (15.8% vs. 7.8%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBE alone, the use of screening MRI following NSM results in higher rate of biopsy and no difference in overall survival.

De-Implementation of Low-Value Care for Women 70 Years of Age or Older with Low-Risk Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Older women with early-stage estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) invasive breast cancer (IBC) are at risk for overtreatment. Guidelines allow for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and radiotherapy omission after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for women 70 years of age or older with T1, clinical node negativity (cN0), and ER+ IBC. The study objective was to evaluate radiotherapy and SLNB de-implementation in older women with low-risk IBC after the resource limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An institutional database was analyzed to identify women 70 years of age or older who received BCS for IBC from 2012 to 2022. The patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) patients with low-risk IBC (pT1, cN0, and ER+/HER2-) who were eligible for radiotherapy and SLNB omission and (2) patients with high-risk IBC (pT2-T4, cN+, ER-, or HER2+) who were ineligible for therapy omission. Clinicopathologic variables in both cohorts were analyzed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 881 patients. For the patients with low-risk IBC, the annual rates of radiotherapy were stable from 2012 to 2019. However, radiotherapy utilization decreased significantly from 2020 to 2022 (58% in 2012 vs 36% in 2022; p = 0.04). In contrast, radiotherapy usage among the patients with high-risk IBC was stable from 2012 to 2022 (79% in 2012 vs 79% in 2022; p = 0.95). Among the patients with low-risk IBC, SLNB rates decreased from 86% in 2012 to 56% in 2022, but this trend predated those in 2020. The factors significantly associated with SLNB and receipt of radiotherapy among the patients with low-risk IBC were younger age, larger tumors, grade 3 disease, and involved nodal status (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated appropriate and sustained de-escalation of radiotherapy in older women with low-risk IBC after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Incidence of Cancer and Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in BRCA Mutation Carriers Undergoing Prophylactic Mastectomies.

INTRODUCTION: Breast surveillance in patients with BRCA mutations include mammography (MMG) and MRI. Patients may elect to undergo risk-reducing bilateral prophylactic mastectomies (BPM). Sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) are frequently performed and associated with increased morbidity. This study sought to determine the correlation between preoperative imaging and the final pathology and evaluate the role of SLNB in these high-risk patients. METHODS: A prospective database identified BRCA patients who underwent BPM between 2006 and 2022. Imaging, pathology, and operative reports were reviewed. RESULTS: 170 patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations were identified. 162 (95.3%) had imaging within one year of BPM. Of these, 28 (17.3%) patients had a MMG/ultrasound, 53 (32.7%) had an MRI, and 81 (50%) had both; 21/162 (13.0%) patients had abnormal imaging. Bilateral SLNB were performed in 31 (18.2%) patients, of which 7 had abnormal imaging; unilateral SLNB were performed in 4 (2.4%) patients, of which 3 had abnormal imaging. 11/170 (6.4%) patients had a malignancy and only one (9%) of these patients had imaging abnormalities. 1/170 (0.6%) patient had an invasive carcinoma requiring an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and 10/170 (5.9%) patients had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). 25/170 (14.7%) had ADH/ALH. Only 7/170 (4.1%) patients had imaging abnormalities and abnormal pathology. All SLNB and ALND performed demonstrated no metastatic disease. DISCUSSION: There is a high rate of discordance between preoperative imaging prior to surgery in BRCA patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomies and final pathology. This study does not support routine SLNB at the time of BPM.

Evaluating variation in enhanced recovery for colorectal surgery: a report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program.

AIM: Robust data demonstrate that enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) decrease length of stay, complications and cost. However, little is known about the reasons for variation in compliance with ERPs. The aim of this work was to confirm the efficacy of ERPs in a regional network, and to determine factors that are associated with ERP delivery in diverse hospital settings. METHOD: A prospective cohort of patients was created by recording all elective colorectal operations at hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP). The delivery of 12 ERP components was tracked at all sites, and factors associated with ERP component delivery and affecting outcomes were reported. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, 9274 elective colorectal operations were performed at 36 hospitals. Indications were 48% cancer, 23% diverticulitis and 8% inflammatory bowel disease. Minimally invasive surgery was used in 71%. The proportion of cases with six or more ERP components received increased from 23% in 2016 to 50% in 2019. An increase in components was associated with a shorter length of stay and fewer combined adverse events and reinterventions. Further, increasing numbers of ERP components provided an incremental benefit to patients even when delivered in a low-volume centre or by a low-volume surgeon, and regardless of patient presentation. CONCLUSION: At SCOAP hospitals, the delivery of increasing numbers of ERP components was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and decreased complications after elective colorectal surgery. The variation in delivery of these evidence-based components in subsets of our cohort indicates an important opportunity for quality improvement initiatives.

Sex differences in long-term outcomes after traumatic injury: A mediation analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the association and potential mediators between sex and long-term trauma outcomes. METHODS: Moderately-to-severely injured patients admitted to 3 level-1 trauma centers were contacted between 6 and 12-months post-injury to assess for functional limitations, use of pain medications, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Multivariable adjusted regression analyses were used to compare long-term outcomes by sex. Potential mediators of the relationship between sex and outcomes was explored using mediation analysis. RESULTS: 2607 patients were followed, of which 45% were female. Compared to male, female patients were more likely to have functional limitations (OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.31-1.60), take pain medications (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02-1.38), and screen positive for PTSD (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.46-1.76) post-injury. Age, extremity injury, previous psychiatric illness, and pre-injury unemployment, partially mediated the effect of female sex on long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant sex differences in long-term trauma outcomes, which are partially driven by patient and injury-related factors.

Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery: Can We Reduce Rates of Mastectomy and Chemotherapy Use in Patients with Traditional Indications for Mastectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Traditional indications for mastectomy include multiple ipsilateral lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases breast conservation but does not improve survival. We hypothesized that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPS) may allow for breast conservation while providing full staging and tumor profiling information to guide systemic therapy decisions, thereby permitting more judicious chemotherapy use. METHODS: This was an observational cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer with multiple lesions and/or disease spanning ≥ 5 cm who underwent OPS from 2012 to 2018. Clinicopathologic features, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy use, and recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 100 patients were identified. Average disease span was 62.8 ± 20.1 mm, with an average of 2.9 lesions (range 1-13). 'No ink on tumor' was achieved at the index operation in 80 patients; 13 patients underwent completion mastectomy to achieve adequate margins. Eighty-one patients completed radiation therapy. Breast conservation was possible in 50/58 (86%) patients who did not receive chemotherapy. Forty-two patients received chemotherapy (8 neoadjuvant, 34 adjuvant), of whom 37 (88%) achieved breast conservation. Twenty-six patients with high-risk features received adjuvant chemotherapy. Oncotype DX testing demonstrated the need for chemotherapy in an additional eight patients. After a median follow-up of 40 months, four patients had a local recurrence, including two who declined radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: OPS can facilitate breast conservation in most patients with traditional indications for mastectomy. Additionally, OPS may reduce unnecessary chemotherapy, especially in patients who qualify for Oncotype DX testing. Further study evaluating long-term oncologic and cosmetic outcomes is warranted.

Evaluating Need for Additional Imaging and Biopsy After Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) using oncoplastic surgery (OPS) allows for larger resections and improved aesthetics though volume redistribution and tissue rearrangement. Data regarding the impact of OPS on surveillance imaging and need for additional biopsies are limited. METHODS: This observational cohort underwent BCT at a single institution from 2009 to 2018; standard breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was the predominant approach until OPS was introduced in 2012. Rates of imaging beyond standard diagnostic views, as well as rates of biopsy following both approaches, are reported. RESULTS: A total of 422 consecutive patients were identified. The OPS group comprised 205 patients and the BCS group included 217 patients. There was no difference in need for additional imaging between groups (BCS: 58 patients [26.7%] vs. OPS: 53 patients [25.9%]; p = 0.91). When additional imaging was required, it was on the ipsilateral side in 35 (60.3%) BCS patients compared with 24 (45.3%) OPS patients (p = 0.21). The need for biopsy was higher in the BCS group (BCS: 41 patients [18.9%] with 47 total biopsies vs. OPS: 20 patients [9.3%] with 22 total biopsies; p < 0.01). Benign findings on biopsy were similar between groups (BCS: 18 [38.3%] vs. OPS: 11 [50.0%]; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: OPS was not associated with an increased need for additional imaging compared with BCS. Concern regarding challenges with follow-up imaging should not impact the decision to offer OPS. Further study and longer-term follow-up is warranted to understand the trends in need for additional imaging, biopsy, and additional procedures following OPS.

A multicenter study of post-traumatic stress disorder after injury: Mechanism matters more than injury severity.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is strongly associated with long-term mental health disorders, but the risk factors for developing these disorders are poorly understood. We report on a multi-institutional collaboration to collect long-term patient-centered outcomes after trauma, including screening for post-traumatic stress disorder. The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for the development of post-traumatic stress disorder after traumatic injury. METHODS: Adult trauma patients (aged 18-64) with moderate to severe injuries (Injury Severity Score ≥ 9) admitted to 3 level I trauma centers were screened between 6 and 12 months after injury for post-traumatic stress disorder. Patients were divided by mechanism: fall, road traffic injury, and intentional injury. Multiple logistic regression models were used to determine the association between baseline patient and injury-related characteristics and the development of post-traumatic stress disorder for the overall cohort and by mechanism of injury. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients completed the screen. Overall 32% screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, but this differed significantly by mechanism, with the lowest being after a fall (25%) and highest after intentional injury (60%). Injury severity was not associated with post-traumatic stress disorder for any group, but lower educational level was associated with post-traumatic stress disorder within all the groups. Only 21% of patients who screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder were receiving treatment at the time of the survey. CONCLUSION: Post-traumatic stress disorder is common after traumatic injury, and the prevalence varies significantly by injury mechanism but is not associated with injury severity. Only a small proportion of patients who screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder are currently receiving treatment.

Association of pain after trauma with long-term functional and mental health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain after trauma is associated with serious clinical, social, and economic burden. Due to limitations in trauma registry data and previous studies, the current prevalence of chronic pain after trauma is unknown, and little is known about the association of pain with other long-term outcomes. We sought to describe the long-term burden of self-reported pain after injury and to determine its association with positive screen for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), functional status, and return to work. METHODS: Trauma survivors with moderate or severe injuries and one completed follow-up interview at either 6 months or 12 months after injury were identified from the Functional Outcomes and Recovery after Trauma Emergencies project. Multivariable logistic regression models clustered by facility and adjusting for confounders were used to obtain the odds of positive PTSD screening, not returning to work, and functional limitation at 6 months and 12 months after injury, in trauma patients who reported to have pain on a daily basis compared to those who did not. RESULTS: We completed interviews on 650 patients (43% of eligible patients). Half of patients (50%) reported experiencing pain daily, and 23% reported taking pain medications daily between 6 months and 12 months after injury. Compared to patients without pain, patients with pain were more likely to screen positive for PTSD (odds ratio [OR], 5.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.97-8.85), have functional limitations for at least one daily activity (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.38-4.26]), and not return to work (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.02-3.39). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant amount of self-reported chronic pain after trauma, which is in turn associated with positive screen for PTSD, functional limitations, and delayed return to work. New metrics for measuring successful care of the trauma patient are needed that span beyond mortality, and it is important we shift our focus beyond the trauma center and toward improving the long-term morbidity of trauma survivors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care management, level III.