Internal Mammary Lymphadenopathy Does Not Impact Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results from the I-SPY2 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Internal mammary lymphadenopathy (IML) plays a role in breast cancer stage and prognosis. We aimed to evaluate method of IML detection, how IML impacts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and oncologic outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated patients enrolled in the I-SPY-2 clinical trial from 2010 to 2022. We captured the radiographic method of IML detection (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], positron emission tomography/computed tomography [PET/CT], or both) and compared patients with IML with those without. Rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant recurrence (DR) and event-free survival (EFS) were compared by bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 2095 patients, 198 (9.5%) had IML reported on pretreatment imaging. The method of IML detection was 154 (77.8%) MRI only, 11 (5.6%) PET/CT only, and 33 (16.7%) both. Factors associated with IML were younger age (p = 0.001), larger tumors (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p = 0.027). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was slightly higher in the IML group (41.4% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.03). There was no difference in breast or axillary surgery (p = 0.41 and p = 0.16), however IML patients were more likely to undergo radiation (68.2% vs. 54.1%; p < 0.001). With a median follow up of 3.72 years (range 0.4-10.2), there was no difference between IM+ versus IM- in LRR (5.6% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.25), DR (9.1% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.58), or EFS (61.6% vs. 57.2%; p = 0.48). This was true for patients with and without pCR. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients treated with NAC, outcomes were not negatively impacted by IML. We demonstrated that IML influences treatment selection but is not a poor prognostic indicator when treated with modern NAC and multidisciplinary disease management.

Clipping the Positive Lymph Node in Patients with Clinically Node Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Impact on Axillary Surgery in the ISPY-2 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with clinically node-positive (cN+) breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), retrieving previously clipped, biopsy-proven positive lymph nodes during sentinel lymph node biopsy [i.e., targeted axillary dissection (TAD)] may reduce false negative rates. However, the overall utilization and impact of clipping positive nodes remains uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed cN+ ISPY-2 patients (2011-2022) undergoing axillary surgery after NAC. We evaluated trends in node clipping and associations with type of axillary surgery [sentinel lymph node (SLN) only, SLN and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or ALND only] and event-free survival (EFS) in patients that were cN+ on a NAC trial. RESULTS: Among 801 cN+ patients, 161 (20.1%) had pre-NAC clip placement in the positive node. The proportion of patients that were cN+ undergoing clip placement increased from 2.4 to 36.2% between 2011 and 2021. Multivariable logistic regression showed nodal clipping was independently associated with higher odds of SLN-only surgery [odds ratio (OR) 4.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-6.8, p < 0.001]. This was also true among patients with residual pathologically node-positive (pN+) disease. Completion ALND rate did not differ based on clip retrieval success. No significant differences in EFS were observed in those with or without clip placement, both with or without successful clip retrieval [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.4-1.7, p = 0.7; HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.5-6.0, p = 0.3, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Clip placement in the positive lymph node before NAC is increasingly common. The significant association between clip placement and omission of axillary dissection, even among patients with pN+ disease, suggests a paradigm shift toward TAD as a definitive surgical management strategy in patients with pN+ disease after NAC.

Does Preoperative MRI Reduce Positive Margins after Breast-Conserving Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is a mainstay for breast cancer management, and obtaining negative margins is critical. Some have advocated for the use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in reducing positive margins after BCS. We sought to determine whether preoperative MRI was associated with reduced positive margins. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The SHAVE/SHAVE2 trials were multicenter trials in ten US centers with patients with stage 0-3 breast cancer undergoing BCS. Use of preoperative MRI was at the discretion of the surgeon. We evaluated whether or not preoperative MRI was associated with margin status prior to randomization regarding resection of cavity with shave margins. RESULTS: A total of 631 patients participated. Median age was 64 (range 29-94) years, with a median tumor size of 1.3 cm (range 0.1-9.3 cm). Patient factors included 26.1% of patients (165) had palpable tumors, and 6.5% (41) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Tumor factors were notable for invasive lobular histology in 7.0% (44) and extensive intraductal component (EIC) in 32.8% (207). A preoperative MRI was performed in 193 (30.6%) patients. Those who underwent preoperative MRI were less likely to have a positive margin (31.1% versus 38.8%), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.073). On multivariate analysis, controlling for patient and tumor factors, utilization of preoperative MRI was not a significant factor in predicting margin status (p = 0.110). Rather, age (p = 0.032) and tumor size (p = 0.040) were the only factors associated with margin status. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that preoperative MRI is not associated margin status; rather, patient age and tumor size are the associated factors.

Omission of Radiation in Conservative Treatment for Breast Cancer: Opportunity for De-escalation of Care.

INTRODUCTION: De-escalation of breast cancer treatment aims to reduce patient and financial toxicity without compromising outcomes. Level I evidence and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines support omission of adjuvant radiation in patients aged >70 y with hormone-sensitive, pT1N0M0 invasive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy. We evaluated radiation use in patients eligible for guideline concordant omission of radiation. METHODS: Subgroup analysis of patients eligible for radiation omission from two pooled randomized controlled trials, which included stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving surgery, was performed to evaluate factors associated with radiation use. RESULTS: Of 631 patients, 47 (7.4%) met radiation omission criteria and were treated by 14 surgeons at eight institutions. The mean age was 75.3 (standard deviation + 4.4) y. Majority of patients identified as White (n = 46; 97.9%) and non-Hispanic (n = 44; 93.6%). The mean tumor size was 1.0 cm; 37 patients (88.1%) had ductal, 4 patients (9.5%) had lobular, and 17 patients (40.5%) had low-grade disease. Among patients eligible for radiation omission, 34 (72.3%) patients received adjuvant radiation. Those who received radiation were significantly younger than those who did not (74 y, interquartile range = 4 y, versus 78 y, interquartile range = 11 y, P = 0.03). There was no difference in radiation use based on size (P = 0.4), histology (P = 0.5), grade (P = 0.7), race (P = 1), ethnicity (P = 0.6), institution (P = 0.1), gender of the surgeon (P = 0.7), or surgeon (P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 10% of patients undergoing breast conservation met criteria for radiation omission. Nearly three-quarters received radiation therapy with younger age being a driver of radiation use, suggesting ample opportunity for de-escalation, particularly among younger eligible patients.

Resection of Cavity Shave Margins in Stage 0-III Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Single-center studies have demonstrated that resection of cavity shave margins (CSM) halves the rate of positive margins and re-excision in breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy (PM). We sought to determine if these findings were externally generalizable across practice settings. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial occurring in 9 centers across the United States, stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing PM were randomly assigned to either have resection of CSM ("shave" group) or not ("no shave" group). Randomization occurred intraoperatively, after the surgeon had completed their standard PM. Primary outcome measures were positive margin and re-excision rates. RESULTS: Between July 28, 2016 and April 13, 2018, 400 patients were enrolled in this trial. Four patients (2 in each arm) did not meet inclusion criteria after randomization, leaving 396 patients for analysis: 196 in the "shave" group and 200 to the "no shave" group. Median patient age was 65 years (range; 29-94). Groups were well matched at baseline for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. Prior to randomization, positive margin rates were similar in the "shave" and "no shave" groups (76/196 (38.8%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), respectively, P = 0.604). After randomization, those in the "shave" group were significantly less likely than those in the "no shave" group to have positive margins (19/196 (9.7%) vs. 72/200 (36.0%), P < 0.001), and to require re-excision or mastectomy for margin clearance (17/196 (8.7%) vs. 47/200 (23.5%), P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Resection of CSM significantly reduces positive margin and re-excision rates in patients undergoing PM.

The impact of obesity on outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy using the ACS-NSQIP data set.

PURPOSE: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 34.7% of females in the United States are obese (BMI ≥ 30) in 2014, compared to 32.5% in 2010. The previous research has demonstrated high BMI as an independent risk factor for surgical complications after breast surgery. As more patients become obese, we sought to examine whether increasing obesity had an effect on outcomes of women who underwent a unilateral mastectomy without breast reconstruction. METHODS: The study reviewed the 2007-2012 ACS-NSQIP database and identified all patients who underwent a unilateral mastectomy without reconstruction. Patients were then categorized and compared according to the World Health Organization obesity classification. Data were analyzed for minor complications (e.g., UTI and SSI) and major complications (e.g., renal failure, sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, return to operating room [RTOR], and cardiac arrest). RESULTS: A total of 7207 women were identified. Median BMI was 27.3 kg/m2. From the cohort, 453 patients (6.29%) had a major complication and 173 patients (2.40%) had a minor complication. 53 (0.74%) had bleeding complications, 148 (2.05%) had a surgical site infection (SSI), 352 (4.88%) RTOR, and 7 (0.01%) died within 30 days. Major complications (p = 0.005) and minor complications (p < 0.001) significantly increased as BMI increased. SSI and RTOR had increasing trends, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes the risk of complications in women undergoing unilateral mastectomies and shows that increasing obesity is associated with major and minor postoperative complications. Our finding highlights the need for personalized preoperative risk assessment and counseling of obese patients.