Cryoablation Without Excision for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ICE3 Trial 5-Year Follow-Up on Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The ICE3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of cryoablation in women aged ≥60 years with low-risk, early-stage breast cancers, aiming to provide a non-operative treatment option and avoid potential surgical risks. This study presents 5-year follow-up trial results. METHODS: The ICE3 trial is an Institutional Review Board-approved, prospective, multicentered, non-randomized trial including women ≥ 60 years of age with unifocal, ultrasound visible, invasive ductal carcinoma ≤ 1.5 cm in size, histologic grade 1-2, hormone receptor (HR)-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative. The primary study endpoint of 5-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) was evaluated based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 194 patients meeting eligibility received successful cryoablation treatment per protocol and were included for analysis. The mean age was 74.9 years (55-94) with a mean tumor size of 7.4 mm transverse (2.8-14.0 mm) and 8.1 mm sagittal (2.5-14.9 mm). With a mean follow-up period of 54.16 months, the IBTR rate at 5 years was 4.3% and breast cancer survival was 96.7%. Of the 124 patients who received endocrine therapy only, the IBTR was 3.7%. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. Minor (88.2%) and moderate (9.6%) adverse events were mild in severity and resolved without residual effects. Quality-of-life score demonstrated statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) in distress at 6 months as compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cryoablation presents a promising alternative to surgery in selected patients, offering the benefits of a minimally invasive procedure with minimal risks. Further studies are encouraged to confirm cryoablation as a viable alternative to surgical excision low-risk patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Breast Cancer Management Updates: Young and Older, Pregnant, or Male.

Every year, more and more patients fall into rare or extreme categories of breast cancer-young, elderly, pregnant, or male. Contributing factors may be improved risk assessment and screening techniques (especially of dense breast tissue), delayed childbearing, and the aging population. These patients can challenge usual medical decision making because of their unique situation. There might be a concern for the fetus, worry about future fertility, a question of local control in a man, or concern for overdiagnosis or overtreatment in an older patient. Because these populations are seldom included in the large breast cancer trials from which standard treatment recommendations are made, an update on management for young, elderly, pregnant, and male breast cancer patients may be helpful.

Mastectomy margins for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS): 18 Years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the significance of a positive or close (<2 mm) margin and associated recurrence risk is unclear. The study sought to evaluate risk of recurrence in relation to the mastectomy surgical margin. METHODS: A single institution retrospective review of patients with DCIS who underwent mastectomy between 2000 and 2010 was performed. Patient demographics, tumor biology, margin status and adjuvant therapy were recorded. The incidence of local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients with DCIS were identified. Overall, 12.3% of patients had a pathological positive/close margin (n = 9 tumor on ink and n = 36 <2 mm). Adjuvant radiation was administered to 11 patients with a positive or close margin. At a median follow-up of 12 years, LR was 3.4% (n = 10). None of the patients with LR had a positive or close margin. Additionally, none of the patients who received radiation developed LR. CONCLUSION: Risk of recurrence after mastectomy for DCIS is low and appears to be unrelated to margin status or the use of radiation therapy.

Correlation of ductal lavage cytology with ductoscopy-directed duct excision histology in women at high risk for developing breast cancer: a prospective, single-institution trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study was designed to determine which histological lesions produce cellular atypia in lavage specimens and whether ductoscopy adds useful information for the evaluation of high-risk patients with atypical lavage cytology. METHODS: We prospectively recruited women ≥35 years at high risk for developing breast cancer. All underwent ductal lavage. Women found to have atypia underwent ductoscopy-directed duct excision (group 1). Women without atypia were observed (group 2). Data included patient demographics, risk assessment, cytologic and histologic findings, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were utilized for data summary and were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: We enrolled 102 women; 93 (91%) were Caucasian. Their median age was 49 (range 34-73) years with a median follow-up of 80 (range 5-90) months. Overall, 27 (26%) had atypical lavage cytology (group 1), and 75 (74%) had benign cytology (group 2). Subsequent duct excision in group 1 revealed benign histology in 11 (44%), papillomas in 9 (36%), atypical hyperplasia (AH) in 4 (16%), and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 1 (4%). At follow-up, three patients developed breast cancer, including one group 1 patient and two group 2 patients. There were no differences between groups 1 and 2 according to patient demographics, Gail scores, or risk for subsequent breast cancer (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although 20% of high-risk women with ductal lavage atypia have AH or malignancy on subsequent excision, the majority do not. Atypia identified by ductal lavage is not associated with a higher risk of developing subsequent breast cancer, even in this high-risk population.