Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.

Purpose: Second opinion consultation for patients with suspicious findings on breast imaging and patients with known breast cancer is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency of second opinion breast and axillary ultrasound imaging review and the subsequent impact on clinical management. Materials and Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective chart review was conducted on 400 consecutive patients with second opinion radiology interpretations performed by subspecialized breast radiologists at a designated cancer center, including mammogram and ultrasound review. The outside institution imaging reports were compared with second opinion reports to categorize ultrasound review discrepancies which were defined as any BI-RADS category change. The discrepancy frequency, relevant alterations in patient management, and added cancer detection were measured. Results: The second opinion imaging review resulted in discrepant findings in 108/400 patients (27%). Patients with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts had higher discrepancy frequency (36% discrepancy, 68/187) than those with almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular breast tissue (19% discrepancy, 40/213) with P = 0.0001. Discrepancies resulted in the following changes in impression/recommendations: 70 repeat ultrasounds for better characterization of a breast lesion, 11 repeat ultrasounds of a negative region, 20 repeat ultrasounds for benign axillary lymph nodes, 5 downgrades from probably benign to benign, and 2 upgrades from benign to suspicious. Repeat ultrasounds of the axilla in 19 patients resulted in 13 biopsy recommendations, and 4 were metastatic (PPV3 31%). In the breast, repeat ultrasounds in 81 patients resulted in 14 upgrades to suspicious. Of these, 5 yielded malignancy. In addition, one patient was upgraded from benign to suspicious based on the outside image, with pathology revealing malignancy (breast PPV3 40%). Breast lesion BI-RADS category downgrades in 27 patients resulted in 10 avoided biopsies. Ultimately, second opinion ultrasound review resulted in altered management in 12% of patients (47/400). This included discovery of additional breast malignancies in 6 patients, metastatic lymph nodes in 4 patients, excisional biopsy for atypia in 1 patient, 4 patients proceeding to mastectomy, 10 patients who avoided biopsies, and 22 patients who avoided follow-up of benign findings. Conclusions: In this study, subspecialized second opinion ultrasound review had an impact on preventing unnecessary procedures and follow-up exams in 8% of patients while detecting additional cancer in 2.5%.

Synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer among women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) confers increased cancer risk in either breast, but it remains unclear if this population is at increased risk for bilateral breast cancer (BC) development. Here we report bilateral BC incidence among women with a history of LCIS. METHODS: Women with classic-type LCIS diagnosed from 1980 to 2017 who developed unilateral BC (UBC) or bilateral BC were identified. Bilateral BC was categorized as synchronous (bilateral BC diagnosed < 6 months apart; SBBC) or metachronous (bilateral BC diagnosed ≥ 6 months apart; MBBC). Five-year incidence rates of bilateral BC among this population were evaluated. Comparisons were made to identify factors associated with bilateral BC. RESULTS: At 7 years' median follow-up, 249/1651 (15%) women with LCIS developed BC; 34 with bilateral BC (2%). There were no clinicopathologic feature differences between those with UBC and bilateral BC. SBBC occurred in 18 without significant differences versus UBC. Among 211 with UBC and a contralateral breast at risk, 16 developed MBBC at a median follow-up of 3 years. MBBC patients were less likely to receive endocrine therapy and more likely to receive chemotherapy versus UBC. Tumor histology was not associated with MBBC. Estimated 5-year MBBC risk was 6.4%. Index estrogen/progesterone receptor positivity and endocrine therapy were the only factors associated with MBBC risk. CONCLUSION: Bilateral BC occurred in 2% of women with LCIS history at median follow-up of 7 years. Similar to the general BC population, a decrease in MBBC is seen among women with a history of LCIS who develop hormone receptor-positive disease and those who receive endocrine therapy, highlighting the protective effects of this treatment.

Bilateral mastectomy operations and the role for the cosurgeon technique: A Nationwide analysis of surgical practice patterns.

Traditionally, bilateral mastectomy (BM) operations are performed by a single surgeon but a two-attending co-surgeon technique (CST) has been described. A questionnaire was sent to members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons to assess national BM practices and analyze utilization and perceived benefits of the CST. Among surgeons responding, most continue to use the single-surgeon approach for BMs; however, 14.1% utilize the CST and up to 31% are interested in future CST use. Time savings, mentorship, cost savings, and opportunity to learn new techniques were identified as perceived CST advantages.

Surgeon Variability and Factors Predicting for Reoperation Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is common and has been partially associated with the lack of consensus on margin definition. We sought to investigate factors associated with reoperations and variation in reoperation rates across breast surgeons at our cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of patients with clinical stage I-II breast cancer who underwent BCS between January and December 2014 were conducted prior to the recommendation of 'no ink on tumor' margin. Patient demographics and tumor and surgical data were extracted from medical records. A multivariate regression model was used to identify factors associated with reoperation. RESULTS: Overall, 490 patients with stage I (n  = 408) and stage II (n  = 89) breast cancer underwent BCS; seven patients had bilateral breast cancer and underwent bilateral BCS procedures. Median invasive tumor size was 1.1 cm, reoperation rate was 22.9% (n  = 114) and varied among surgeons (range 15-40%), and, in 100 (88%) patients, the second procedure was re-excision, followed by unilateral mastectomy (n  = 7, 6%) and bilateral mastectomy (n  = 7, 6%). Intraoperative margin techniques (global cavity or targeted shaves) were utilized in 50.1% of cases, while no specific margin technique was utilized in 49.9% of cases. Median total specimen size was 65.8 cm3 (range 24.5-156.0). In the adjusted model, patients with multifocal disease were more likely to undergo reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 5.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17-15.42]. In addition, two surgeons were found to have significantly higher reoperation rates (OR 6.41, 95% CI 1.94-21.22; OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.07-10.85). CONCLUSIONS: Examination of BCS demonstrated variability in reoperation rates and margin practices among our breast surgeons. Future trials should look at surgeon-specific factors that may predict for reoperations.

Bilateral mastectomies: can a co-surgeon technique offer improvements over the single-surgeon method?

PURPOSE: Bilateral mastectomy (BM) is traditionally performed using a single-surgeon (SS) technique (SST); a co-surgeon (CS) technique (CST), where each attending surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We sought to compare the CST and SST for BM with respect to operative times and complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing BM without reconstruction at our institution between 2005 and 2015 were identified using operative caselogs and stratified into CS- and SS-cohorts. Operative time (OT; incision to closure) was calculated. Patient age, cancer presence/stage, hormone receptor/BRCA status, breast weight, axillary procedure, and 30-day complications were extracted. Differences in OT, complications, and demographics between cohorts were assessed with t tests and Chi-square tests. A multivariate linear regression model was fit to identify factors independently associated with OT. RESULTS: Overall, 109 BM cases were identified (CS, n = 58 [53.2%]; SS, n = 51 [46.8%]). Average duration was significantly shorter for the CST by 33 min (21.6% reduction; CS: 120 min vs. SS: 153 min, p < 0.001), with no difference in complication rates (p = 0.65). Demographic characteristics did not differ between cohorts except for total breast weight (TBW) (CS: 1878 g vs. SS: 1452 g, p < 0.05). Adjusting for TBW, CST resulted in a 27.8% reduction in OT (44-min savings, p < 0.001) compared to SST. CONCLUSIONS: The CST significantly reduces OT for BM procedures compared to the SST without increasing complication rates. While time-savings was < 50% and may not be ideal for every patient, the CST offers an alternative BM approach potentially best-suited for large TBW patients and those undergoing axillary procedures.

Patient Prognostic Score and Associations With Survival Improvement Offered by Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a standard treatment option for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We sought to determine the survival benefit of RT after BCS on the basis of risk factors for local recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed to identify patients with DCIS diagnosed between 1988 and 2007 and treated with BCS by using SEER data. Patients were divided into the following two groups: BCS+RT (RT group) and BCS alone (non-RT group). We used a patient prognostic scoring model to stratify patients on the basis of risk of local recurrence. We performed a Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score weighting to evaluate breast cancer mortality between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 32,144 eligible patients with DCIS, 20,329 (63%) in the RT group and 11,815 (37%) in the non-RT group. Overall, 304 breast cancer-specific deaths occurred over a median follow-up of 96 months, with a cumulative incidence of breast cancer mortality at 10 years in the weighted cohorts of 1.8% (RT group) and 2.1% (non-RT group; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.88). Significant improvements in survival in the RT group compared with the non-RT group were only observed in patients with higher nuclear grade, younger age, and larger tumor size. The magnitude of the survival difference with RT was significantly correlated with prognostic score (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In this population-based study, the patient prognostic score for DCIS is associated with the magnitude of improvement in survival offered by RT after BCS, suggesting that decisions for RT could be tailored on the basis of patient factors, tumor biology, and the prognostic score.

Does "Two is Better Than One" Apply to Surgeons? Comparing Single-Surgeon Versus Co-surgeon Bilateral Mastectomies.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral mastectomies (BM) are traditionally performed by single surgeons (SS); a co-surgeon (CS) technique, where each surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We examined differences in general surgery time (GST), overall surgery time (OST), and patient complications for BM performed by CS and SS. METHODS: Patients undergoing BM with tissue expander reconstruction (BMTR) between January 2010 and May 2014 at our center were identified through operative case logs. GST (incision to end of BM procedure), reconstruction duration (RST) (plastic surgery start to end of reconstruction) and OST (OST = GST + RST) was calculated. Patient age, presence/stage of cancer, breast weight, axillary procedure performed, and 30-day postoperative complications were extracted from medical records. Differences in GST and OST between CS and SS cases were assessed with a t test. A multivariate linear regression was fit to identify factors associated with GST. RESULTS: A total of 116 BMTR cases were performed [CS, n = 67 (57.8 %); SS, n = 49 (42.2 %)]. Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. GST and OST were significantly shorter for CS cases, 75.8 versus 116.8 min, p < .0001, and 255.2 versus 278.3 min, p = .005, respectively. Presence of a CS significantly reduces BMTR time (ß = -38.82, p < .0001). Breast weight (ß = 0.0093, p = .03) and axillary dissection (ß = 28.69, p = .0003) also impacted GST. CONCLUSIONS: The CS approach to BMTR reduced both GST and OST; however, the degree of time savings (35.1 and 8.3 %, respectively) was less than hypothesized. A larger study is warranted to better characterize time, cost, and outcomes of the CS-approach for BM.

A low cost training phantom model for radio-guided localization techniques in occult breast lesions.

Radio-guided localization (RGL) for identifying occult breast lesions has been widely accepted as an alternative technique to other localization methods, including those using wire guidance. An appropriate phantom model would be an invaluable tool for practitioners interested in learning the technique of RGL prior to clinical application. The aim of this study was to devise an inexpensive and reproducible training phantom model for RGL. We developed a simple RGL phantom model imitating an occult breast lesion from inexpensive supplies including a pimento olive, a green pea and a turkey breast. The phantom was constructed for a total cost of less than $20 and prepared in approximately 10 min. After the first model's construction, we constructed approximately 25 additional models and demonstrated that the model design was easily reproducible. The RGL phantom is a time- and cost-effective model that accurately simulates the RGL technique for non-palpable breast lesions. Future studies are warranted to further validate this model as an effective teaching tool.

The Influence of Radiology Image Consultation in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management. METHODS: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9% were female; 23.5% (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5% (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7% (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8% (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7% (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5% (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery. Fig. 1 Impact of second-opinion imaging reviews on the management of breast cancer patients CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7% (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.

Survival Benefit of Breast Surgery for Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

IMPORTANCE: While the prevalence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast has increased substantially following the introduction of breast-screening methods, the clinical significance of early detection and treatment for DCIS remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade DCIS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from October 9, 2014, to January 15, 2015, at the Dana-Farber/Brigham Women's Cancer Center. Between 1988 and 2011, 57,222 eligible cases of DCIS with known nuclear grade and surgery status were identified. EXPOSURES: Patients were divided into surgery and nonsurgery groups. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient backgrounds between groups. A log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess factors related to overall and breast cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Of 57,222 cases of DCIS identified in this study, 1169 cases (2.0%) were managed without surgery and 56,053 cases (98.0%) were managed with surgery. With a median follow-up of 72 months from diagnosis, there were 576 breast cancer-specific deaths (1.0%). The weighted 10-year breast cancer-specific survival was 93.4% for the nonsurgery group and 98.5% for the surgery group (log-rank test, P < .001). The degree of survival benefit among those managed surgically differed according to nuclear grade (P = .003). For low-grade DCIS, the weighted 10-year breast cancer-specific survival of the nonsurgery group was 98.8% and that of the surgery group was 98.6% (P = .95). Multivariable analysis showed there was no significant difference in the weighted hazard ratios of breast cancer-specific survival between the surgery and nonsurgery groups for low-grade DCIS. The weighted hazard ratios of intermediate- and high-grade DCIS were significantly different (low grade: hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.21-3.52; intermediate grade: hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.42; and high grade: hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11-0.23) and similar results were seen for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The survival benefit of performing breast surgery for low-grade DCIS was lower than that for intermediate- or high-grade DCIS. A prospective clinical trial is warranted to investigate the feasibility of active surveillance for the management of low-grade DCIS.

Surgical Options and Locoregional Recurrence in Patients Diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast.

PURPOSE: Recent consensus guidelines on margins for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) recommend the use of "no ink on tumor" as the standard for an adequate margin. The recommendations extend to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), but the data on this subset are limited. We reviewed our modern dataset on margin status with outcomes of ILC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on 736 patients with a diagnosis of stage I-III ILC treated at our cancer center between May 1997 and December 2007. Clinicopathologic data were extracted from the Clinical Research Information Systems Database. Margin status was defined using the latest ASCO/ASTRO/SSO consensus guideline criteria. RESULTS: The initial surgery performed was mastectomy in 352 patients (48 %) and BCS in 384 patients (52 %). In multivariate analysis, tumor size and multifocality were significantly associated with high rates of mastectomy and positive surgical margins at initial BCS. After initial BCS, additional surgery was performed in 92 patients (24 %). During a 72-month median follow-up period, 12 (3.1 %) ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences (IBTR) and 5 (1.3 %) other locoregional recurrences (LRR) were observed. Patients with margins with ink on tumor who did not receive further surgery were found to have significantly increased LRR [odds ratio (OR) 5.5; p = 0.02] and IBTR (OR 8.5; p = 0.006), whereas patients with close margins (1-3 mm) and margins within 1 mm were not. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the validity of using "no ink on tumor" as the standard for a negative margin for pure and mixed ILC treated with multimodality therapy.