Incidence of Pathologic Nodal Disease in Clinically Node-Negative, Microinvasive or T1a Breast Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Axillary staging in early-stage breast cancer can impact adjuvant treatment options but also has associated morbidity. The incidence of pathologic nodal positivity (pN+) in patients with microinvasive or T1a disease is poorly characterized and the value of sentinel node biopsy remains controversial. METHODS: Women with cN0 and pathologic microinvasive or T1a cancer who underwent upfront surgery were identified from the National Cancer Database. Pathologic nodal stage at the time of surgery was the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic modeling was used to assess predictors of pN+. RESULTS: Overall, 141,840 women were included; 139,206 had pathologic node-negative (pN0) disease and 2634 had pN+ disease. Rates of pN+ disease differed by receptor status, with the highest rates in hormone receptor-negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HR-/HER2+) disease compared with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-), and triple positive breast cancer. Rates of pN+ were also higher with lobular histology compared with ductal histology. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with White women, Black women had higher odds of pN+ disease, and compared with women <50 years of age, women >70 years of age had higher odds of pN+ disease. Compared with women with HR+/HER2- disease, women with TNBC, triple-positive breast cancer, and HR-/HER2+ all had lower odds, and women with invasive lobular disease had higher odds compared with women with invasive ductal disease. Women with significant comorbidities also had higher odds of node positivity. CONCLUSION: Over 90% of patients with clinically node-negative, microinvasive and T1a breast cancer remain pathologically node-negative following axillary staging. However, higher rates of nodal disease were found among Black patients, older patients, and patients with lobular cancer and significant comorbidities.

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case for Virtual Residency Interviews.

This perspective from a variety of stakeholders including aspiring surgeons, a current department chair for education, and a current chair of surgery advocates for making virtual residency interviews a permanent part of the match process. We delineate how a shift to virtual residency interviews can save applicants time and money, enhance equity in the match, and ultimately strengthen a program's ability to assess applicants.