The Association Between Pregnancy Timing and Cumulative Exposure on Survival in Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: As melanoma is common among young women, the impact of pregnancy on melanoma prognosis is of interest. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between pregnancy and survival in female melanoma patients of childbearing age. METHODS: We performed a population-level, retrospective cohort study of women of childbearing age (18-45 years) diagnosed with melanoma from 2007 to 2017 using administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Patients were categorized according to pregnancy status (i.e. pregnancy before [conception from 60 to 13 months prior to melanoma], pregnancy-associated [conception 12 months prior to and after], and pregnancy after [conception 12 months after] melanoma). Cox models were used to examine melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) associated with pregnancy status. RESULTS: Of 1312 women with melanoma, most did not experience pregnancy (84.1%), with 7.6% experiencing a pregnancy-associated melanoma and 8.2% experiencing a pregnancy after melanoma. Pregnancy before melanoma occurred in 18.1% of patients. Pregnancy before (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-1.28), associated (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45-2.97), and after melanoma (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13-1.11) was not associated with a difference in MSS compared with those who did not experience a pregnancy during these time periods. Pregnancy status was also not associated with a difference in OS (p > 0.05). Cumulative weeks pregnant were not associated with a difference in MSS (4-week HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.07) or OS (4-week HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-level analysis of female melanoma patients of childbearing age, pregnancy was not associated with a difference in survival, suggesting that pregnancy is not associated with a worse melanoma prognosis.

A Canadian national guideline on the neoadjuvant treatment of invasive breast cancer, including patient assessment, systemic therapy, and local management principles.

PURPOSE: The neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer (NABC) is a rapidly changing area that benefits from guidelines integrating evidence with expert consensus to help direct practice. This can optimize patient outcomes by ensuring the appropriate use of evolving neoadjuvant principles. METHODS: An expert panel formulated evidence-based practice recommendations spanning the entire neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment journey. These were sent for practice-based consensus across Canada using the modified Delphi methodology, through a secure online survey. Final recommendations were graded using the GRADE criteria for guidelines. The evidence was reviewed over the course of guideline development to ensure recommendations remained aligned with current relevant data. RESULTS: Response rate to the online survey was almost 30%; representation was achieved from various medical specialties from both community and academic centres in various Canadian provinces. Two rounds of consensus were required to achieve 80% or higher consensus on 59 final statements. Five additional statements were added to reflect updated evidence but not sent for consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Key highlights of this comprehensive Canadian guideline on NABC include the use of neoadjuvant therapy for early stage triple negative and HER2 positive breast cancer, with subsequent adjuvant treatments for patients with residual disease. The use of molecular signatures, other targeted adjuvant therapies, and optimal response-based local regional management remain actively evolving areas. Many statements had evolving or limited data but still achieved high consensus, demonstrating the utility of such a guideline in helping to unify practice while further evidence evolves in this important area of breast cancer management.

Phyllodes Tumors: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: Phyllodes tumors are rare tumors of the breast, with most literature being retrospective with limited guidelines on the management of these patients. Scoping review was performed to highlight themes and gaps in the available literature. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was performed as per PRISMA-ScR guidelines with titles, abstracts, and full texts reviewed in duplicate. Data were abstracted and summarized in categories of diagnostics, surgical management, adjuvant therapies, treatment of recurrence, and surveillance. Quality assessment was performed for each paper. RESULTS: The search identified 4498 references, 434 full-text papers were reviewed, and 183 papers were included. Ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and core needle biopsy are valuable preoperative diagnostics tools. Pathology reporting should include stromal overgrowth, stromal cellularity, nuclear atypia, mitotic rate, borders, and presence of heterologous elements. Ki67 may have a role in grading and prognosticating. Breast conservation is safe in all grades of phyllodes but may be associated with increased local recurrence in malignant phyllodes. Surgical margins should depend on grade. Axillary node positivity rate is very low, even with clinically enlarged lymph nodes. Adjuvant radiation is a useful tool to decrease local recurrence in malignant phyllodes tumors, tumors > 5 cm, age < 45 years, close margins, and breast conservation. There is no evidence supporting adjuvant chemotherapy. Recurrence can be managed with repeat wide excision; however, mastectomy is associated with lower re-recurrence. Surveillance protocols are variable in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity in the literature on phyllodes tumors. Consensus guidelines based on the literature will help provide evidence-based care.

Why Do Older Women Avoid Breast Cancer Surgery? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making Factors.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored why older women (≥70 years old) avoid breast cancer surgery. This study aimed to identify physician- and patient-perceived attitudes that influence the decision to avoid surgery among older women with invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with multidisciplinary breast cancer specialists and older women (≥70 years old) with breast cancer who declined surgery. Transcripts were iteratively coded using a theoretical framework to guide identification of common themes. Thematic comparison was performed between patients and physicians. RESULTS: Ten breast cancer specialists and eleven patients participated. Physicians believed older women declined surgery because they did not perceive breast cancer as a life-threatening ailment compared to other medical comorbidities. Physicians did not discuss breast reconstruction, as it was perceived to be unimportant. Treatment side effects, length of treatment, impact on quality of life, and minimal survival benefit strongly influenced patients' decision to decline surgery. Patients valued independence and quality of life over quantity of life. Patients felt empowered to participate in the decision-making process but appreciated having support. Both phyisicians and patients had congruent beliefs with respect to age impacting treatment decision, cosmesis playing a minor factor in treatment decisions, and importance of quality of life; however, they were discordant in their perceptions about the amount of support that patients have from their families. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to avoid surgery in older women stems from a variety of individual beliefs. Acknowledging patient values early in treatment planning may facilitate a patient-centered approach to the decision-making process.

Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis.

PURPOSE: Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) experience lingering confusion and anxiety, and may use the Internet for supplemental information. This study assessed the content and quality of DCIS information on the Internet. METHODS: We searched Google for English-language, publicly available DCIS information tools published from 2010 to current by non-profit organizations. We summarized tool characteristics, DCIS labels, and information important to women with DCIS corresponding to domains of a patient-centred care (PCC) framework. Tool quality was appraised with the DISCERN instrument. RESULTS: Of 39 tools included, most were plain language summaries published since 2016. Tools employed a median of 2.0 labels (range 1.0 to 5.0) for DCIS, most frequently non-invasive breast cancer (29, 74.4%), abnormal cells (14, 35.9%), pre-cancer (14, 35.9%), and early form of breast cancer (13, 33.3%). Tools addressed a median of 4.0 (range 2.0 to 5.0) PCC domains. Few tools contained content in the domains of fostering the relationship (30.8%), addressing emotions (41.0%), or follow-up (41.0%); 74.4% noted the risk of progression or recurrence but provided vague details. Tools were assessed as high (25.6%), moderate (48.7%), and low (25.6%) quality. CONCLUSIONS: Few DCIS information tools available to women on the Internet meet quality criteria for consumer health information or address concerns of importance to women with DCIS. By identifying a range of poorly defined terms used to label DCIS, and specific content domains that were lacking, this study identified how existing tools could be improved, and identified higher-quality tools that clinicians can use when discussing DCIS with patients.

Interventions are needed to support patient-provider decision-making for DCIS: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Prognostic and treatment uncertainty make ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) complex to manage. The purpose of this study was to describe research that evaluated DCIS communication experiences, needs and interventions among DCIS patients or physicians. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2017. English language studies that evaluated patient or physician DCIS needs, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies published from 1997 to 2016 were eligible for review, with a peak of 8 articles in year 2010. Women with DCIS lacked knowledge about the condition and its prognosis, although care partners were more informed, desired more information and experienced decisional conflict. Many chose mastectomy or prophylactic mastectomy, often based on physician's recommendation. Following treatment, women had anxiety and depression, often at levels similar to those with invasive breast cancer. Disparities were identified by education level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and literacy. Physicians said that they had difficulty explaining DCIS and many referred to DCIS as cancer. Despite the challenges reported by patients and physicians, only two studies developed interventions designed to improve patient-physician discussion and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: As most women with DCIS undergo extensive treatment, and many experience treatment-related complications, the paucity of research on PE to improve and support informed decision-making for DCIS is profound. Research is needed to improve patient and provider discussions and decision-making for DCIS management.

Individual surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

The management of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is complex. Local tumor resection with disease-free resection margins without lymphadenectomy is the treatment of choice for primary non-metastatic tumors. This can be achieved with several techniques including wedge resection, transgastric resection, partial gastrectomy, total gastrectomy, and multivisceral resection. Open and minimally invasive surgical approaches can be considered. We describe the technical steps of the aforementioned procedures in relation to tumor size, tumor location (especially at or near the gastro-esophageal junction or pylorus), pattern of exophytic or intraluminal growth, adherence to surrounding structures, and other tumor-associated factors. Challenging situations in gastric surgery for GISTs are also discussed and categorized according to a classification of intraoperative complexity (1 [easy] to 4 [very difficult]). On the basis of this classification, we divided all patients with an indication for gastric GIST surgery into appropriate groups.

Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care. Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time. Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment. Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

Examining the potential relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival: an international literature review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to examine the relationship between multidisciplinary cancer care and patient survival. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken between January 1950 and September 2009. Included studies described multidisciplinary cancer care and its relation to patient survival. Multidisciplinary care was defined as involvement of a team of clinical and allied specialists whose intent is individualized patient management. Studies were critically appraised for internal and external validity. All study designs were included. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met eligibility criteria for this review, including two systematic reviews, one abstract, and 18 original studies. Pooling of results was not possible due to heterogeneity of patient populations, disease sites, measured outcomes, and follow-up periods. Twelve studies (one prospective and six retrospective cohort studies, five before-after series) reported statistically significant association between multidisciplinary care and patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Due to methodological limitations, this review is unable to assert a causal relationship between multidisciplinary care and patient survival. In order to better evaluate this relationship, the oncology community must first accept a common definition of multidisciplinary care. Future efforts can then elucidate which aspects of multidisciplinary care impact survival, with consideration of confounding patient and tumour factors.

Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: exploring the attitudes of cancer care providers and administrators.

The multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCC) provides an outlet for contributors in cancer care collectively to evaluate diagnosis and treatment options and to provide optimal patient care. The prevalence and perceived benefits of MCCs in Canada have not previously been described. Between February and March 2007, the Cancer Services Integration Survey, including four key statements concerning MCCs, was administered to cancer care providers and administrators in Ontario, Canada. A total of 1,769 responses were received with a response rate of 33%. Overall, 74% of respondents were aware of MCCs within their region, but only 58% were either regular MCC participants, or acknowledged participation of cancer providers in their institutions. Using multilevel modeling, physicians (OR 2.69, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.62-4.57) and surgeons (OR 3.00, p-value < 0.01, 95% CI 1.52-6.20) both perceived greater benefit of MCCs for coordinating and improving patient plans than administrators. Although MCCs appear to positively influence patient care and interprofessional interactions, variability exists among cancer providers and administrators concerning their acceptance and perceived benefits. Further research should concentrate on further probing these trends, and exploring explanations and solutions for the inconsistent acceptance of MCCs into routine cancer care.

Perioperative Pregabalin and Intraoperative Lidocaine Infusion to Reduce Persistent Neuropathic Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter, Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial.

Persistent postsurgical pain is defined as pain localized to the area of surgery of a duration of ≥2 months and is, unfortunately, a common complication after breast cancer surgery. Although there is insufficient evidence to support any preventative strategy, prior literature suggests the possible efficacy of intravenous lidocaine and perioperative pregabalin in preventing persistent pain after surgery. To determine feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial, we conducted a multicenter 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial of 100 female patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Patients were randomized to receive an intraoperative lidocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h) or placebo and perioperative pregabalin (300 mg preoperatively, 75 mg twice daily for 9 days) or placebo. All feasibility criteria were surpassed; recruitment of 100 patients was accomplished within 42 weeks, with a follow-up rate of 100% and study drug compliance of ≥80%. At 3 months, 53% of patients reported persistent neuropathic pain. Although there was no interaction between lidocaine and pregabalin, lidocaine decreased the development of persistent neuropathic pain (43.1% vs 63.3%; relative risk = .68; 95% confidence interval = .47-1.0). Pregabalin did not reduce persistent pain (60% vs 46%; relative risk = 1.3; 95% confidence interval = .90-1.90) and neither pregabalin nor lidocaine impacted acute postoperative pain, opioid consumption, pain interference, or quality of life. Our pilot trial successfully demonstrated feasibility and provided promising data for conducting further trials of intraoperative lidocaine infusions during breast cancer surgeries. Clinical trial number: NCT02240199 PERSPECTIVE: This article reports the findings of a pilot randomized, controlled trial evaluating the effects of perioperative pregabalin and intraoperative lidocaine infusions in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. This trial demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and provided promising data that these interventions may decrease the development of persistent pain.