Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system. METHODS: Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy. RESULTS: The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

Surgical complications of skin sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is gaining acceptance as an option for breast cancer treatment, particularly in young women. These women may seek immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy even though it is not known whether such preoperative chemotherapy may be detrimental to post-reconstruction wound healing. Therefore, we set out to assess the influence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer on the short-term complications after skin sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction. METHODOLOGY: The short-term surgical outcome of 48 immediate breast reconstructions in 37 women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2006 through 2009 was prospectively compared to that of 215 immediate reconstructions in 176 women who were operated in the same period without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: The overall rate of short-term postoperative complications was significantly less among neoadjuvantly treated women (15% vs. 29%; p = 0.042) but this did not result in a reduction of loss of prostheses (8% vs. 11%; p = 0.566). CONCLUSION: Because neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not associated with an increase in short-term complications after skin sparing mastectomy and immediate prosthetic reconstruction in patients with invasive breast cancer, such combined surgical therapy may be offered as treatment option for this particular group of patients also.

Changing patterns in diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

BACKGROUND: The increased incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast and the emergence of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools like mammographic screening, stereotactic core biopsy and reconstructive surgery prompted us to investigate how these developments influenced diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Clinical and pathological characteristics of 403 patients with DCIS consecutively treated at The Netherlands Cancer Institute between 1986 and 2002 were evaluated and the effect of introduction of mammographic screening, stereotactic core biopsy and reconstruction on diagnosis and treatment was studied. RESULTS: Following the nationwide introduction of mammographic screening the number of non-symptomatic DCIS increased from 47 to 77%. Introduction of stereotactic core biopsy resulted in a rise of one-step procedures from 26 to 52%. Mastectomy rate did not change over time: 59% overall. However, reconstruction rate increased from 17 to 39%. CONCLUSION: This study shows a steep rise in diagnosis of non-symptomatic DCIS after introduction of screening. Further, the introduction of pre-operative diagnosis by stereotactic core biopsy resulted in a decrease of multiple surgical procedures. Mastectomy, with increasing application of breast reconstructions, remains an important treatment modality in the management of DCIS despite advancements in detection and diagnosis.