Patient-reported observations on medical procedure timeliness (PROMPT) in breast cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Timeliness of care is an important healthcare outcome measure. The objective of this study was to explore patient perspectives on the timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment at accredited breast cancer centers. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 1 hour virtual interviews were conducted with participants 18-75 years old who were diagnosed and treated for stage 0-III breast cancer at a National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers facility from 2018 to 2022. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes of participant experiences. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants were interviewed. Two thematic domains were identified: etiologies of expedited or delayed care and the impact of delayed or expedited care on patients. Within these domains, multiple themes emerged. For etiologies of expedited or delayed care, participants discussed (1) the effect of scheduling appointments, (2) the COVID-19 pandemic, (3) dissatisfaction with the timeline for various parts of the diagnostic workup, and (4) delays related to patient factors, including socioeconomic status. For the impact of expedited or delayed care, patients discussed (1) the emotional and mental impact of waiting, (2) the importance of communication and clear expectations, and (3) the impact of electronic health portals. Patients desired each care interval (e.g., the time from mammogram to breast biopsy) to be approximately 7 days, with longer intervals sometimes preferred prior to surgery. CONCLUSION: These patient interviews identify areas of delay and provide patient-centered, actionable items to improve the timeliness of breast cancer care.

Development and validation of a clinical breast cancer tool for accurate prediction of recurrence.

Given high costs of Oncotype DX (ODX) testing, widely used in recurrence risk assessment for early-stage breast cancer, studies have predicted ODX using quantitative clinicopathologic variables. However, such models have incorporated only small cohorts. Using a cohort of patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB, n = 53,346), we trained machine learning models to predict low-risk (0-25) or high-risk (26-100) ODX using quantitative estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR)/Ki-67 status, quantitative ER/PR status alone, and no quantitative features. Models were externally validated on a diverse cohort of 970 patients (median follow-up 55 months) for accuracy in ODX prediction and recurrence. Comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) in a held-out set from NCDB, models incorporating quantitative ER/PR (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI 0.77-0.80) and ER/PR/Ki-67 (AUROC 0.81, 95% CI 0.80-0.83) outperformed the non-quantitative model (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI 0.68-0.72). These results were preserved in the validation cohort, where the ER/PR/Ki-67 model (AUROC 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93, p = 0.009) and the ER/PR model (AUROC 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92, p = 0.031) significantly outperformed the non-quantitative model (AUROC 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.87). Using a high-sensitivity rule-out threshold, the non-quantitative, quantitative ER/PR and ER/PR/Ki-67 models identified 35%, 30% and 43% of patients as low-risk in the validation cohort. Of these low-risk patients, fewer than 3% had a recurrence at 5 years. These models may help identify patients who can forgo genomic testing and initiate endocrine therapy alone. An online calculator is provided for further study.

Declination of Treatment, Racial and Ethnic Disparity, and Overall Survival in US Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: Declining treatment negatively affects health outcomes among patients with cancer. Limited research has investigated national trends of and factors associated with treatment declination or its association with overall survival (OS) among patients with breast cancer. Objectives: To examine trends and racial and ethnic disparities in treatment declination and racial and ethnic OS differences stratified by treatment decision in US patients with breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used data for patients with breast cancer from the 2004 to 2020 National Cancer Database. Four treatment modalities were assessed: chemotherapy, hormone therapy (HT), radiotherapy, and surgery. The chemotherapy cohort included patients with stage I to IV disease. The HT cohort included patients with stage I to IV hormone receptor-positive disease. The radiotherapy and surgery cohorts included patients with stage I to III disease. Data were analyzed from March to November 2023. Exposure: Race and ethnicity and other sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment decision, categorized as received or declined, was modeled using logistic regression. OS was modeled using Cox regression. Models were controlled for year of initial diagnosis, age, sex, health insurance, median household income, facility type, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, histology, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, molecular subtype, and tumor grade. Results: The study included 2 837 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [13.4] years; 99.1% female), with 1.7% American Indian, Alaska Native, or other patients; 3.5% Asian or Pacific Islander patients; 11.2% Black patients; 5.6% Hispanic patients; and 78.0% White patients. Of 1 296 488 patients who were offered chemotherapy, 124 721 (9.6%) declined; 99 276 of 1 635 916 patients (6.1%) declined radiotherapy; 94 363 of 1 893 339 patients (5.0%) declined HT; and 15 846 of 2 590 963 patients (0.6%) declined surgery. Compared with White patients, American Indian, Alaska Native, or other patients (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.72), Asian or Pacific Islander patients (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.44), and Black patients (AOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.89-2.14) were more likely to decline surgery; American Indian, Alaska Native, or other patients (AOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05-1.21) and Asian or Pacific Islander patients (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.27) were more likely to decline chemotherapy; and Black patients were more likely to decline radiotherapy (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). Asian or Pacific Islander patients (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), Black patients (AOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and Hispanic patients (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69) were less likely to decline HT. Furthermore, Black patients who declined chemotherapy had a higher mortality risk than White patients (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), while there were no OS differences between Black and White patients who declined HT (AHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13) or radiotherapy (AHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study highlights racial and ethnic disparities in treatment declination and OS, suggesting the need for equity-focused interventions, such as patient education on treatment benefits and improved patient-clinician communication and shared decision-making, to reduce disparities and improve patient survival.

Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and timeliness of diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening mammogram in the ACR's National Mammography Database. METHODS: Abnormal screening mammograms (BI-RADS 0 assessment) in the National Mammography Database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2021, were retrospectively identified. The rates and timeliness of follow-up with diagnostic evaluation and biopsy were assessed and compared across patient and facility demographics. RESULTS: Among the 2,874,310 screening mammograms reported as abnormal, follow-up was documented in 66.4% (n = 1,909,326). Lower follow-up rates were observed in younger women (59.4% in women < 30 years, 63.2% in women 30-39 years), Black (57.4%) and American Indian (59.5%) women, and women with no breast cancer family history (63.0%). The overall median time to diagnostic evaluation was 9 days. Longer median diagnostic evaluation time was noted in Black (14 days), other or mixed race (14 days), and Hispanic women (13 days). Of the 318,977 recalled screening mammograms recommended for biopsy, 238,556 (74.8%) biopsies were documented. Lower biopsy rates were noted in older women (71.5% in women aged ≥80) and Black (71.5%) and American Indian (52.2%) women. The overall median time from diagnostic evaluation to biopsy was 21 days. Longer median biopsy time was noted in older (23 days aged ≥80), Black (25 days), mixed or other race (26 days), and Hispanic women (23 days), and rural (24 days) or community hospital affiliated facilities (22 days). DISCUSSION: There is variability in the rates and timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and biopsy in women with abnormal screening mammogram. Subsets of women and facilities could benefit from targeted interventions to promote timely diagnostic resolution and biopsy after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Patient values in breast cancer surgical decision-making - The WhySurg study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe patient values and personality traits associated with breast surgery choice for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A survey based on qualitative patient interviews and the Big-Five personality trait profile was distributed to Love Research Army volunteers aged 18-70 years old who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2009 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine independent patient values and personality traits for the choice of breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM). RESULTS: 1497 participants completed the survey. Open-mindedness was associated with UM and sociability was associated with BM. A majority of patients prioritized cancer outcomes. Compared to BM patients, BCS and UM patients were significantly more likely to choose values associated with maintaining their self-image, optimizing surgical recovery, and following their doctor's recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Other values besides cancer outcomes differentiate patient surgical choice for BCS or mastectomy.

Rates of newly diagnosed breast cancer at commission on cancer facilities during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine the impact of the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases at Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited facilities relative to the United States (U.S.) population. METHODS: We examined the incidence of breast cancer cases at CoC sites using the U.S. Census population as the denominator. Breast cancer incidence was stratified by patient age, race and ethnicity, and geographic location. RESULTS: A total of 1,499,806 patients with breast cancer were included. For females, breast cancer cases per 100,000 individuals went from 188 in 2015 to 203 in 2019 and then dropped to 176 in 2020 with a 15.7% decrease from 2019 to 2020. Breast cancer cases per 100,000 males went from 1.7 in 2015 to 1.8 in 2019 and then declined to 1.5 in 2020 with a 21.8% decrease from 2019 to 2020. For both females and males, cases per 100,000 individuals decreased from 2019 to 2020 for almost all age groups. For females, rates dropped from 2019 to 2020 for all races and ethnicities and geographic locations. The largest percent change was seen among Hispanic patients (-18.4%) and patients in the Middle Atlantic division (-18.6%). The stage distribution (0-IV) for female and male patients remained stable from 2018 to 2020. CONCLUSION: The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decreased number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases at Commission on Cancer sites.

Exploring Breast Surgeons' Attitudes on Universal Genetic Testing: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Breast Surgeons released a consensus statement that genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer. However, it is not clear whether physicians feel comfortable with universal genetic testing (UGT) or if they have sufficient knowledge to interpret results and manage them appropriately. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore breast surgeons' attitudes toward UGT. METHODS: Breast surgeons were consented and scheduled for a semi-structured virtual interview. Transcripts were uploaded into qualitative analysis software where they were exhaustively and iteratively coded. Codes were then organized into higher-order categories and themes and data saturation were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one surgeons completed the qualitative interview. Most surgeons practiced in the academic or community setting and most practiced in the Midwest (71.0%). The majority (90.3%) reported having a structured genetics program. The majority (96.8%) referred their patients to genetics for counseling and most preferred ordering testing through a genetic services provider. Some surgeons had concerns about access to genetic services. A minority of surgeons order UGT for all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The majority of respondents thought that more training in genetics was needed for surgeons. Many surgeons expressed concern about the psychosocial effects of UGT on patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many surgeons expressed concerns about UGT, mainly related to discomfort with their training, access to genetic services, and the psychosocial impact on their patients. Future work is needed to determine how to improve surgeon's comfort level in implementing UGT.

Trends in bilateral mastectomy rates among different racial backgrounds: A National Cancer Database study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown a decrease in bilateral mastectomy (BM) rates over the past five to ten years, but it is not clear if these decreases are the same across different patient races. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) we examined BM rates for patients with AJCC Stage 0-II unilateral breast cancer from 2004 to 2020 for White versus nonwhite races (Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient and facility factors associated with BM by patient race from 2004 to 2006 and 2018-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,187,864 patients, 791,594 (66.6%) had breast conserving surgery (BCS), 258,588 (21.8%) had unilateral mastectomy (UM) and 137,682 (11.6%) had BM. Our patient population was 927,530 (78.1%) White patients, 124,636 (10.5%) Black patients, 68,048 (5.7%) Hispanic patients, and 48,341 (4.1%) Asian patients. The BM rate steadily increased from 5.6% to 15.6% from 2004 to 2013, at which point the BM rate decreased to 11.3% in 2020. The decrease in BM was seen across all races, and in 2020, 6,487 (11.7%) Whites underwent BM compared to 506 (10.7%) Hispanics, 331 (9.2%) Asians, and 723 (9.1%) Blacks. Race was a significant independent factor for BM in 2004-2006 and 2018-2020 but all races were more likely to undergo BM in 2004 compared to 2020 after adjusting for patient and facility factors. Compared to Whites, the odds of undergoing BM were OR 0.41 (0.37-0.45) in 2004 compared to OR 0.66 (0.63-0.69) in 2020 for Blacks, OR 0.44 (0.38-0.52) and OR 0.61 (0.57-0.65) for Asians and OR 0.59 (0.52-0.66) and OR 0.71 (0.67-0.75) for Hispanics, respectively. CONCLUSION: BM rates for all races have declined since 2013, and differences in rates of BM amongst races have narrowed.

Rates of Bilateral Mastectomy in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

This cohort study builds on previous research from the National Cancer Database to assess whether rates of bilateral mastectomy continue to increase.

Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening.

Importance: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. Objective: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Accredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022. Exposures: Collaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods. Results: Of 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, -13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, -23.1 to -3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests). Conclusions and Relevance: In this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

Impact of Surgical Delay on Tumor Upstaging and Outcomes in Estrogen Receptor-Negative Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Patients.

BACKGROUND: The delay of elective surgeries by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted concern among surgeons to delay estrogen receptor (ER)-negative ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for fear of missing an ER-negative invasive cancer and compromising survival of patients. STUDY DESIGN: Female patients ≥40 years old diagnosed with ER-negative DCIS from 2004 to 2017 were examined from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for patient and tumor factors, was used to determine factors associated with tumor upstage. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine if surgical delay impacted overall survival of ER-negative DCIS patients that were upstaged to invasive disease. RESULTS: There were 219,731 patients with DCIS of which 24,338 (11.1%) had tumor upstage. Of these patients, 5,675 (16.2%) of ER-negative and 18,663 (10.1%) of ER-positive DCIS patients were upstaged (p ≤ 0.001). From 2004 to 2017, ER-negative DCIS upstage rates increased from 12.9% to 18.9%. Independent factors associated with tumor upstage were younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.75 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.81]) and Black race (OR 1.34 [95% CI 1.22 to 1.46]). Compared with patients with ≤30 days between biopsy and surgery, patients with a 31- to 60-day interval (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.20]) and a >60-day interval (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.23]) had an increased rate of tumor upstage. Among ER-negative DCIS patients whose tumors were upstaged to invasive disease, Cox proportional hazard regression modeling showed no association between the number of days between biopsy and surgery and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in surgery were associated with higher tumor upstage rates but not with worse overall survival.

Male Breast Cancer Patient and Surgeon Experience: The Male WhySurg Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the experience of the male breast cancer patient. Mastectomy is often offered despite evidence that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides similar outcomes. METHODS: Two concurrent online surveys were distributed from August to October 2020 via social media to male breast cancer (MBC) patients and by email to American Society of Breast Surgeon members. The MBC patients were asked their opinions about their surgery, and the surgeons were asked to provide surgical recommendations for MBC patients. RESULTS: The survey involved 63 MBC patients with a mean age of 62 years (range, 31-79 years). Five MBC patients (7.9 %) stated that their surgeon recommended BCS, but 54 (85.7 %) of the patients underwent unilateral, and 8 (12.7 %) underwent bilateral mastectomy. Most of the patients (n = 60, 96.8 %) had no reconstruction. One third of the patients (n = 21, 33.3 %) felt somewhat or very uncomfortable with their appearance after surgery. The response rate was 16.5 % for the surgeons. Of the 438 surgeons who answered the survey, 298 (73.3 %) were female, 215 (51.7 %) were fellowship-trained, and 244 (58.9 %) had been practicing for 16 years or longer. More than half of surgeons (n = 259, 59.1 %) routinely offered BCS to eligible men, and 180 (41.3 %) stated they had performed BCS on a man with breast cancer. Whereas 89 (20.8 %) of the surgeons stated that they routinely offer reconstruction to MBC patients, 87 (20.3 %) said they do not offer reconstruction, 96 (22.4 %) said they offer it only if the patient requests it, and 157 (36.6 %) said they never consider it as an option. CONCLUSIONS: The study found discordance between MBC patients' satisfaction with their surgery and surgeon recommendations and experience. These data present an opportunity to optimize the MBC patient experience.

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. METHODS: This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. RESULTS: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. LAY SUMMARY: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated? FINDINGS: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.

The Impact of Radiotherapy Delay in Breast Conservation Patients Not Receiving Chemotherapy and the Rationale for Dichotomizing the Radiation Oncology Time-Dependent Standard into Two Quality Measures.

INTRODUCTION: The Commission on Cancer/National Quality Forum breast radiotherapy quality measure establishes that for women < 70 years, adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (BCS) should be started < 1 year from diagnosis. This was intended to prevent accidental radiotherapy omission or delay due to a long interval between surgery and chemotherapy completion, when radiation is delivered. However, the impact on patients not receiving chemotherapy, who proceed from surgery directly to radiotherapy, remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18-69, diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer as their first and only cancer diagnosis (2004-2016), having BCS, for whom this measure would be applicable, were reviewed from the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Among 308,521 patients, the median age was 57.0 years, and > 99% of all patients were compliant with the measure. The cohort of interest included 186,650 (60.5%) patients not receiving chemotherapy, with a mean age of 57.9 years. Of these, 90.5% received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and 9.5% brachytherapy. Among them, 24.9% started radiotherapy > 8 weeks after surgery. In a multivariable model, delay from surgery to radiotherapy increased the hazard ratios for overall survival to 9.0% (EBRT) per month and 3.0% (brachytherapy) per week. CONCLUSION: While 99.9% of patients undergoing BCS without chemotherapy remain compliant with the current quality measure, 25% have delays > 8 weeks to start radiation, which is associated with impaired survival. These data suggest that the current quality measure should be dichotomized into two, with or without chemotherapy, in order to impel prompt radiotherapy initiation and maximize outcomes in all patients.

Patients Undergoing Bilateral Mastectomy and Breast-Conserving Surgery Have the Lowest Levels of Regret: The WhySurg Study.

BACKGROUND: The recent data on decision regret of patients undergoing breast cancer surgery are sparse. METHODS: An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to Love Research Army volunteers ages 18-70 years who underwent breast cancer surgery from 2009 to 2020. Decision regret scores were compared among patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), unilateral mastectomy (UM), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and BCS first (BCS followed by re-excision or mastectomy) and between procedures during different time periods. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for patient and tumor factors, was used to determine whether surgery type was associated with a regret score in the highest quartile range. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2148 women, 1525 (71.0%) of whom reported their surgery choice and answered all questions on the regret scale. The mean age of the participants was 50 years, and the median year of surgery was 2014. The median decision regret score for all the patients was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 0-20) on a 100-point scale. The regret score of 342 participants (22.4%) was 25 or higher (BCS, 20.2%; BCS first, 31.9%; UM, 30.8%; BM, 15.4%; p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, BM was associated with less regret than UM (odds ratio [OR], 0.40 (range, 0.27-0.58); p < 0.001), BCS (OR, 0.56 (range, 0.38-0.83; p = 0.003), or BCS first (OR, 0.32; range, 0.21-0.49; p < 0.001). During the three periods analyzed (2009-2012, 2013-2016, and 2017-2020), the BM and BCS patients had the lowest regret scores of all the surgical types. CONCLUSIONS: Decision regret was low among the patients undergoing breast cancer surgery but lowest among the BM patients after adjustment for clinical and tumor factors including complications.

Improving the Breast Surgeon's Ergonomic Workload for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies Using Exercise and Operating Room Positioning Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine whether an exercise program and standardized operating room positioning protocol (EOPP) would improve surgeon muscle workload and/or surgeon perception of mental/physical workload for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). METHODS: This prospective study analyzed muscle workload by EMG of four surgeons performing NSM before and after an EOPP. Surveys were administered assessing surgeon perception of mental/physical workload. EMG data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, controlling for surgeon, first assistant, duration and difficulty of procedure, left or right side, and sequence of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 56 NSM cases performed by 3 surgeons were analyzed. One surgeon was excluded because of muscle injury and undergoing active physical therapy during the study period. After implementation of the EOPP, the left (P = 0.005) and right (P = 0.020) upper trapezii muscles had a significant decrease in overall ergonomic workload but there was no significant change in overall ergonomic workload for the bilateral cervical erector spinae, anterior deltoid, and lumbar erector spinae muscle groups. When analyzing muscle group exertion by surgeon, there was significant variability in all muscles except the left cervical erector spinae. Following the EOPP, surgeons reported that the procedures were more physically (P = 0.01) and mentally (P = 0.002) demanding and visualization (P = 0.04) was worse. The breast laterality and sequence did not affect muscle exertion. CONCLUSIONS: An EOPP decreased the overall ergonomic workload of one muscle group for surgeons performing NSM but did not impact surgeon perception of mental/physical workload. Further investigation is needed to improve surgeon ergonomics.

Uptake of Breast Cancer Clinical Trials at Minority Serving Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Most minorities receive cancer care at minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) that have been associated with disparate treatment between Black and White patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine the uptake of clinical trials that have changed axillary management in breast cancer patients at MSH and non-MSH cancer centers. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients eligible for the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 and Z1071 trials, and mastectomy patients fulfilling the European AMAROS trial. Uptake of trial results (omission of axillary lymph node dissection) was analyzed between patients treated at MSHs and non-MSHs and adjusted for patient, tumor, and facility factors. MSHs were defined as the top decile of hospitals according to the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients treated. RESULTS: Of 7167 patients eligible for Z0011, 4546 for Z0171, and 9433 for AMAROS from 2015 to 2016, clinical trial uptake was seen in 1195 (74.6%) MSH and 4056 (72.9%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.173) for Z0011, 588 (41.9%) MSH and 1366 (43.5%) non-MSH patients for Z1071 (p = 0.302), and 272 (11.7%) MSH and 996 (14.0%) non-MSH patients (p = 0.005) for AMAROS. On adjusted analyses, MSH status was not significant for uptake of any of the three trials. Black race, socioeconomic status, and insurance were not associated with clinical trial uptake. CONCLUSION: The uptake of three landmark clinical trials of axillary management in breast cancer was not different at MSH and non-MSH centers despite adjustment for social determinants of health. At the Commission on Cancer-accredited centers in this analysis, MSH status did not affect the uptake of evidence-based care.