Chest wall perforator flaps for breast reconstruction: international survey on attitudes and training needs.

BACKGROUND: Volume replacement using chest wall perforator flaps (CWPFs) is a promising technique to reduce mastectomy rates without sacrificing function or aesthetics. Owing to limited availability of the technique, only a minority of patients currently have access to CWPF procedures. METHODS: An international web-based survey was disseminated through social media, dedicated webpages, and national and international societies for breast surgery. The survey explored surgeons' attitudes towards CWPFs and their perceived training needs. RESULTS: Of 619 respondents, 88.4 per cent agreed that CWPF surgery was desirable, with one-third offering it and performing a median of 10 (i.q.r. 5-15) procedures annually. They were more likely to be senior (OR 1.35, 95 per cent c.i. 1.18 to 1.55; P < 0.001), with formal oncoplastic training (OR 4.80, 3.09 to 7.48; P < 0.001), and working in larger units (OR 1.18, 1.03 to 1.35; P = 0.018) with a free-flap (OR 1.62, 1.06 to 2.48; P = 0.025) or CWPF (OR 3.02, 1.87 to 4.89; P < 0.001) service available. In cluster and latent class analysis, none showed high cohesion with performance of CWPF surgery. CONCLUSION: There is a discrepancy between perceived importance and availability of CWPF surgery, indicating that optimal training is needed.

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.

Covid-19 related oncologist's concerns about breast cancer treatment delays and physician well-being (the CROWN study).

PURPOSE: To examine how treatment delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the physical and emotional well-being of physicians treating these patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of physician breast specialists was posted from April 23rd to June 11th, 2020 on membership list serves and social media platforms of the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers and the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Physician well-being was measured using 6 COVID-19 burnout emotions and the 4-item PROMIS short form for anxiety and sleep disturbance. We examined associations between treatment delays and physician well-being, adjusting for demographic factors, COVID-19 testing and ten COVID-19 pandemic concerns. RESULTS: 870 physicians completed the survey, 61% were surgeons. The mean age of physicians was 52 and 548 (63.9%) were female. 669 (79.4%) reported some delay in patient care as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. 384 (44.1%) and 529 (60.8%) of physicians scored outside normal limits for anxiety and sleep disturbance, respectively. After adjusting for demographic factors and COVID-19 testing, mean anxiety and COVID-19 burnout scores were significantly higher among physicians whose patients experienced either delays in surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, breast imaging or specialty consultation. A multivariable model adjusting for ten physician COVID-19 concerns and delays showed that "delays will impact my emotional well-being" was the strongest concern associated with anxiety, sleep disturbance and COVID-19 burnout factors. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer treatment delays during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States were associated with a negative impact on physician emotional wellness.

The Landmark Series: Breast Conservation Trials (including oncoplastic breast surgery).

Significant progress has been made in the treatment and outcome of breast cancer. Some of the most dramatic strides have been in the surgical management of breast cancer. Breast-conserving therapy (BCT), including wide local excision of the tumor followed by irradiation, has become a standard treatment option for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. Large cooperative group trials have contributed to the paradigm shift from mastectomy to BCT. This review reports the landmark BCT trials that provided the data for current surgical practices. The review also describes the body of literature contributing to the increasing use of oncoplastic techniques for patients undergoing BCT.

The Landmark Series: Mastectomy Trials (Skin-Sparing and Nipple-Sparing and Reconstruction Landmark Trials).

Despite advances in medical therapy, the foundation of breast cancer treatment is surgery. The landscape of operative intervention for breast cancer has shifted toward less invasive techniques, resulting in improved cosmesis and lower morbidity while maintaining oncologic integrity. In this article, we review the body of literature contributing to landmark advances in mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

Despite Equivalent Outcomes, Men Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Less Often Than Women for Lymph Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) downstages breast cancer and provides prognostic information. Males with breast cancer are known to receive less treatment overall and have poorer outcomes relative to females. We hypothesized that males would be less likely to receive NAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a primary diagnosis of cN1-3 breast cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2016). Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between NAC utilization and sex, and the relationship between sex and NAC response, controlling for demographic and tumor factors. Overall survival was analyzed using a multivariable Cox model. RESULTS: In total, 196,027 patients (194,010 females, 2017 males) met inclusion criteria. A significantly greater proportion of males underwent mastectomy (80% vs. 60%, P < 0.001), and axillary lymph node dissection (76% vs. 74%, P = 0.022). Overall fewer men received chemotherapy than women (73% vs. 84%, P < 0.001); men also received NAC at a significantly lower rate (26% men vs. 45% women, P < 0.001). After accounting for demographic and oncologic factors including hormone receptor (HR) subtype, females remained more likely to undergo NAC (OR 1.84, P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, sex was not associated with pathologic response or overall survival after NAC. CONCLUSIONS: Although oncologic outcomes after NAC were similar, males with node-positive breast cancer received less NAC and more aggressive surgery than females. These data suggest men achieve outcomes comparable to women with cN1-3 disease, and NAC should be used in appropriate male patients to downstage the breast and axilla.

Analysis of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Multidisciplinary Management of Breast Cancer: Review from the American Society of Breast Surgeons COVID-19 and Mastery Registries.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in rapid and regionally different approaches to breast cancer care. METHODS: In order to evaluate these changes, a COVID-19-specific registry was developed within the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) Mastery that tracked whether decisions were usual or modified for COVID-19. Data on patient care entered into the COVID-19-specific registry and the ASBrS Mastery registry from 1 March 2020 to 15 March 2021 were reviewed. RESULTS: Overall, 177 surgeons entered demographic and treatment data on 2791 patients. Mean patient age was 62.7 years and 9.0% (252) were of African American race. Initial consultation occurred via telehealth in 6.2% (173) of patients and 1.4% (40) developed COVID-19. Mean invasive tumor size was 2.1 cm and 17.8% (411) were node-positive. In estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) disease, neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) was used as the usual approach in 6.9% (119) of patients and due to COVID-19 in an additional 31% (542) of patients. Patients were more likely to receive NET due to COVID-19 with increasing age and if they lived in the Northeast or Southeast (odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 2.3, and 1.7, respectively; p < 0.05). Genomic testing was performed on 51.5% (781) of estrogen-positive patients, of whom 20.7% (162) had testing on the core due to COVID-19. Patients were less likely to have core biopsy genomic testing due to COVID-19 if they were older (OR 0.89; p = 0.01) and more likely if they were node-positive (OR 4.0; p < 0.05). A change in surgical approach due to COVID-19 was reported for 5.4% (151) of patients. CONCLUSION: The ASBrS COVID-19 registry provided a platform for monitoring treatment changes due to the pandemic, highlighting the increased use of NET.

Hospital System Adoption of Magnetic Seeds for Wireless Breast and Lymph Node Localization.

BACKGROUND: As an alternative to traditional wire localization, an inducible magnetic seed system can be used to identify and remove nonpalpable breast lesions and axillary lymph nodes intraoperatively. We report the largest single-institution experience of magnetic seed placement for operative localization to date, including feasibility and short-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent placement of a magnetic seed in the breast or lymph node were identified from July 2017 to March 2019. Imaging findings, core needle biopsy, surgical pathology results, and type of surgery were collected. Outcomes included procedural complications, magnetic seed and biopsy clip retrieval rates, and need for additional surgery. RESULTS: A total of 842 magnetic seeds were placed by nine radiologists in 673 patients and retrieved by six surgeons at six operative locations. The majority of breast lesions were malignant (395/659, 59.9%); 136 seeds were placed for lymph node localization. The overall magnetic seed retrieval rate was 98.6%, whereas the biopsy clip retrieval rate was 90.9%. Only six patients (0.7%) experienced a complication from magnetic seed placement. Reexcision was performed in 15.2% of patients with breast cancer; 9.6% of benign/high risk lesions were upgraded to malignancy at surgical excision. CONCLUSIONS: The magnetic seed technique is safe, effective, and accurate for localization of breast lesions and lymph nodes, and importantly uncouples surgery from the localization procedure. The high magnetic seed retrieval rate and low reexcision rate may reflect the accuracy of magnetic marker placement as a "second chance" localization procedure, especially in cases with biopsy clip migration.

Cryoablation Without Excision for Low-Risk Early-Stage Breast Cancer: 3-Year Interim Analysis of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence in the ICE3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICE3 trial is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of breast cryoablation, enabling women older than 60 years with low-risk early-stage breast cancers to benefit from a nonsurgical treatment and to avoid the associated surgical risks. METHODS: The ICE3 trial is a prospective, multi-center, single-arm, non-randomized trial including women age 60 years or older with unifocal, ultrasound-visible invasive ductal carcinoma size 1.5 cm or smaller and classified as low to intermediate grade, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) at 5 years was the primary outcome. A 3-year interim analysis of IBTR was performed, and the IBTR probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Full eligibility for the study was met by 194 patients, who received successful cryoablation per protocol. The mean age was 75 years (range, 55-94 years). The mean tumor length was 8.1 mm (range, 8-14.9 mm), and the mean tumor width was 7.4 mm (range, 2.8-14 mm). During a mean follow-up period of 34.83 months, the IBTR rate was 2.06% (4/194 patients). Device-related adverse events were reported as mild in 18.4% and moderate in 2.4% of the patients. No severe device-related adverse events were reported. More than 95% of the patients and 98% of the physicians reported satisfaction with the cosmetic results at the clinical follow-up evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cryoablation presents a promising alternative to surgery while offering the benefits of a minimally invasive procedure with minimal risks. Further study within a clinical trial or registry is needed to confirm cryoablation as a viable alternative to surgical excision for appropriately selected low-risk patients.

Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

Pain Management in Breast Surgery: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel-The American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Opioid overdose accounted for more than 47,000 deaths in the United States in 2018. The risk of new persistent opioid use following breast cancer surgery is significant, with up to 10% of patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions one year after surgery. Over prescription of opioids is far too common. A recent study suggested that up to 80% of patients receiving a prescription for opioids post-operatively do not need them (either do not fill the prescription or do not use the medication). In order to address this important issue, The American Society of Breast Surgeons empaneled an inter-disciplinary committee to develop a consensus statement on pain control for patients undergoing breast surgery. Representatives were nominated by the American College of Surgeons, the Society of Surgical Oncology, The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and The American Society of Anesthesiologists. A broad literature review followed by a more focused review was performed by the inter-disciplinary panel which was comprised of 14 experts in the fields of breast surgery, anesthesiology, plastic surgery, rehabilitation medicine, and addiction medicine. Through a process of multiple revisions, a consensus was developed, resulting in the outline for decreased opioid use in patients undergoing breast surgery presented in this manuscript. The final document was reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The 2018 Compensation Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is limited compensation data for breast surgery benchmarking. In 2018, the American Society of Breast Surgeons conducted its second membership survey to obtain updated compensation data as well as information on practice type and setting. METHODS: In October 2018, a survey was emailed to 2676 active members. Detailed information on compensation was collected, as well as data on gender, training, years in and type of practice, percent devoted to breast surgery, workload, and location. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze the impact of various factors on compensation. RESULTS: The response rate was 38.2% (n = 1022, of which 73% were female). Among the respondents, 61% practiced breast surgery exclusively and 54% were fellowship trained. The majority of fellowship-trained surgeons within 5 years of completion of training (n = 126) were female (91%). Overall, mean annual compensation was $370,555. On univariate analysis, gender, years of practice, practice type, academic position, ownership, percent breast practice, and clinical productivity were associated with compensation, whereas fellowship training, region, and practice setting were not. On multivariate analysis, higher compensation was significantly associated with male gender, years in practice, number of cancers treated per year, and wRVUs. Compensation was lower among surgeons who practiced 100% breast compared with those who did a combination of breast and other surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in compensation among breast surgeons were identified by practice type, academic position, ownership, years of practice, percent breast practice, workload, and gender. Overall, mean annual compensation increased by $40,000 since 2014.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Breast Cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide insight into how patients perceive health and treatment effects, how treatments impact outcomes, and are helpful in determining how disease and surgical interventions impact many aspects of a patients' life. Commonly utilized metrics include survival and disease control, degree of recovery and functional status, access to treatment, treatment-related complications, health-related quality of life, and long-term consequences of therapy. The key to value-based, patient-centered health care is systematically incorporating patient input into the measures that they consider to be the most important outcomes for a particular medical condition while minimizing costs of care. This manuscript reviews the development and validation of multiple available PROs in breast surgical oncology and reconstruction, their impact in improving patient-physician communication and treatment outcome, and potential for impacting reimbursement. The implementation of PROs can be complex and challenging and care must be taken to minimize the potential for survey fatigue by patients and the potential financial burden for implementation, maintenance, and analyses of collected data. Because there is an increased emphasis in providing high-value care for cancer patients, the widespread incorporation of transparent breast-specific PROs stratified by treatments received and disease stage will be essential in delivering exceptional quality care.

False-positive Extra-Mammary Findings in Breast MRI: Another Cause for Concern.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been repeatedly shown to have a high false-positive rate for additional findings in the breast resulting in additional breast imaging and biopsies. We hypothesize that breast MRI is also associated with a high rate of false-positive findings outside of the breast requiring additional evaluation, interventions, and delays in treatment. We performed a retrospective review of all breast MRIs performed on breast cancer patients in 2010 at a single institution. MRI reports were analyzed for extra-mammary findings. The timing and yield of the additional procedures was also analyzed. Three hundred and twenty-seven breast cancer patients (average age = 53.53 ± 11.08 years) had a breast MRI. Incidental, extra-mammary findings were reported in 35/327 patients (10.7%) with a total of 38 incidental findings. The extra-mammary findings were located in the liver (n = 21, 60.0%), thoracic cavity (n = 12, 34.3%), kidneys (n = 1, 2.9%), musculoskeletal system (n = 3, 8.6%), and neck (n = 1, 2.9%). Eighteen of the 35 patients (51.4%) received additional radiographic imaging, 3 (8.6%) received additional laboratory testing, 2 (5.7%) received additional physician referrals and 2 (5.7%) received a biopsy of the finding. The average time to additional procedures in these patients was 14.5 days. None of the incidental, extra-mammary findings were associated with breast cancer or other malignancy. Breast MRI was associated with a high rate (10.7%) of extra-mammary findings, which led to costly additional imaging studies, referrals, and tests. These findings were not associated with breast cancer or other malignancies. Extra-mammary findings highlight an unrecognized adverse consequence of breast MRI.