Critical updates in neuroendocrine tumors: Version 9 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for all cancer sites, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), is meant to be dynamic, requiring periodic updates to optimize AJCC staging definitions. This entails the collaboration of experts charged with evaluating new evidence that supports changes to each staging system. GEP-NETs are the second most prevalent neoplasm of gastrointestinal origin after colorectal cancer. Since publication of the AJCC eighth edition, the World Health Organization has updated the classification and separates grade 3 GEP-NETs from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. In addition, because of major advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for GEP-NETs, AJCC version 9 advocates against the use of serum chromogranin A for the diagnosis and monitoring of GEP-NETs. Furthermore, AJCC version 9 recognizes the increasing role of endoscopy and endoscopic resection in the diagnosis and management of NETs, particularly in the stomach, duodenum, and colorectum. Finally, T1NXM0 has been added to stage I in these disease sites as well as in the appendix.

Comparison of incident breast cancer cases in the largest national US tumor registries.

BACKGROUND: This study compared incident breast cancer cases in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results Program (SEER) to a national population cancer registry. METHODS: Patients with malignant or in situ breast cancer (BC) 2010-2019 in the NCDB and SEER were compared to the US Cancer Statistics (USCS). Case coverage was estimated as the number of patients in the NCDB/SEER as a proportion of USCS cases. RESULTS: The USCS reported 3,047,509 patients; 77.5% patients were included in the NCDB and 46.0% in SEER. Case ascertainment varied significantly by patient sex (both registries, p < .001). For males, 84.1% were captured in the NCDB, whereas only 77.5% of females were included. Case coverage in SEER was better for females than males (46.1% vs. 43.5%). Registries varied significantly by race/ethnicity (both p < .001). Case coverage in the NCDB was highest for non-Hispanic White (78.2%), non-Hispanic Black (77.7%), and non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (72.5%) BC patients, and lowest for Hispanic (56.4%) and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (41.1%) patients. In SEER, case coverage was highest for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander (78.1%) and Hispanic (69.6%) patients and it was significantly lower for all other subgroups (non-Hispanic Black, 44.8%; non-Hispanic White, 42.4%; and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 36.6%). CONCLUSIONS: National US tumor registries provide data for a large sampling of breast cancer patients, yet significant differences in case coverage were observed based on age, sex, and race/ethnicity. These findings suggest that analyses using these data sets and interpretation of findings should account for these meaningful variances.

At the Intersection of Intersectionality: Race and Gender Diversity Among Surgical Faculty and Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the representation of intersectional (ie, racial/ethnic and gender) identities among surgical faculty versus medical students. BACKGROUND: Health disparities are pervasive in medicine, but diverse physicians may help the medical profession achieve health equity. METHODS: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 140 programs (2011/2012-2019/2020) were analyzed for students and full-time surgical faculty. Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was defined as Black/African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino/Spanish Origin, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Non-White included URiM plus Asian, multiracial, and non-citizen permanent residents. Linear regression was used to estimate the association of year and proportions of URiM and non-White female and male faculty with proportions of URiM and non-White students. RESULTS: Medical students were comprised of more White (25.2% vs 14.4%), non-White (18.8% vs 6.6%), and URiM (9.6% vs 2.8%) women and concomitantly fewer men across all groups versus faculty (all P < 0.01). Although the proportion of White and non-White female faculty increased over time (both P ≤ 0.001), there was no significant change among non-White URiM female faculty, nor among non-White male faculty, regardless of whether they were URiM or not. Having more URiM male faculty was associated with having more non-White female students (estimate = +14.5% students/100% increase in faculty, 95% CI: 1.0% to 8.1%, P = 0.04), and this association was especially pronounced for URiM female students (estimate = +46.6% students/100% increase in faculty, 95% CI: 36.9% to 56.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: URiM faculty representation has not improved despite a positive association between having more URiM male faculty and having more diverse students.

Survival among patients with untreated metastatic breast cancer: "What if I do nothing?"

PURPOSE: We sought to assess survival outcomes of patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) who did not receive treatment irrespective of the reason. METHODS: Adults with dnMBC were selected from the NCDB (2010-2016) and stratified based on receipt of treatment (treated = received at least one treatment and untreated = received no treatments). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with OS. RESULTS: Of the 53,240 patients with dnMBC, 92.1% received at least one treatment (treated), and 7.9% had no documented treatments, irrespective of the reason (untreated). Untreated patients were more likely to be older (median 68 y vs 61 y, p < 0.001), have higher comorbidity scores (p < 0.001), have triple-negative disease (17.8% vs 12.6%), and a higher disease burden (≥ 2 metastatic sites: 38.2% untreated vs 29.2% treated, p < 0.001). The median unadjusted OS in the untreated subgroup was 2.5 mo versus 36.4 mo in the treated subgroup (p < 0.001). After adjustment, variables associated with a worse OS in the untreated cohort included older age, higher comorbidity scores, higher tumor grade, and triple-negative (vs HR + /HER2-) subtype (all p < 0.05), while the number of metastatic sites was not associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dnMBC who do not receive treatment are more likely to be older, present with comorbid conditions, and have clinically aggressive disease. Similar to those who do receive treatment, survival in an untreated population is associated with select patient and disease characteristics. However, the prognosis for untreated dnMBC is dismal.

Impact of HER2-low status for patients with early-stage breast cancer and non-pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a National Cancer Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate potential differences in pathological complete response (pCR) rates and overall survival (OS) between HER2-low and HER2-zero patients with early-stage hormone receptor (HR)-positive and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. METHODS: We identified early-stage invasive HER2-negative BC patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the National Cancer Database. HER2-low was defined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1+ or 2+ with negative in situ hybridization, and HER2-zero by IHC0. All the methods were applied separately in the HR-positive and TNBC cohorts. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association of HER2 status with pCR (i.e. ypT0/Tis and ypN0). Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were applied to estimate the association of HER2 status with OS. Inverse probability weighting and/or multivariable regression were applied to all analyses. RESULTS: For HR-positive patients, 70.9% (n = 17,934) were HER2-low, whereas 51.1% (n = 10,238) of TNBC patients were HER2-low. For both HR-positive and TNBC cohorts, HER2-low status was significantly associated with lower pCR rates [HR-positive: 5.0% vs. 6.7%; weighted odds ratio (OR) = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.91), p < 0.001; TNBC: 21.6% vs. 24.4%; weighted OR = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98), p = 0.007] and improved OS [HR-positive: weighted hazard ratio = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91), p < 0.001; TNBC: weighted hazard ratio = 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96), p < 0.001]. HER2-low status was associated with favorable OS among patients not achieving pCR [HR-positive: adjusted hazard ratio = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.89), p < 0.001; TNBC: adjusted hazard ratio = 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.94), p < 0.001], while no significant difference in OS was observed in patients who achieved pCR [HR-positive: adjusted hazard ratio = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.61-1.63), p > 0.99; TNBC: adjusted hazard ratio = 1.11 (95% CI: 0.85-1.45), p = 0.44]. CONCLUSION: In both early-stage HR-positive and TNBC patients, HER2-low status was associated with lower pCR rates. HER2-zero status might be considered an adverse prognostic factor for OS in patients not achieving pCR.

Patient Characteristics Impact Performance of AI Algorithm in Interpreting Negative Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Studies.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to manage radiologists' workloads. The impact of patient characteristics on AI performance has not been well studied. Purpose To understand the impact of patient characteristics (race and ethnicity, age, and breast density) on the performance of an AI algorithm interpreting negative screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) examinations. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study identified negative screening DBT examinations from an academic institution from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. All examinations had 2 years of follow-up without a diagnosis of atypia or breast malignancy and were therefore considered true negatives. A subset of unique patients was randomly selected to provide a broad distribution of race and ethnicity. DBT studies in this final cohort were interpreted by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm, which generated case scores (malignancy certainty) and risk scores (1-year subsequent malignancy risk) for each mammogram. Positive examinations were classified based on vendor-provided thresholds for both scores. Multivariable logistic regression was used to understand relationships between the scores and patient characteristics. Results A total of 4855 patients (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-63 years]) were included: 27% (1316 of 4855) White, 26% (1261 of 4855) Black, 28% (1351 of 4855) Asian, and 19% (927 of 4855) Hispanic patients. False-positive case scores were significantly more likely in Black patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.2, 1.8]) and less likely in Asian patients (OR = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.9]) compared with White patients, and more likely in older patients (71-80 years; OR = 1.9 [95% CI: 1.5, 2.5]) and less likely in younger patients (41-50 years; OR = 0.6 [95% CI: 0.5, 0.7]) compared with patients aged 51-60 years. False-positive risk scores were more likely in Black patients (OR = 1.5 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.0]), patients aged 61-70 years (OR = 3.5 [95% CI: 2.4, 5.1]), and patients with extremely dense breasts (OR = 2.8 [95% CI: 1.3, 5.8]) compared with White patients, patients aged 51-60 years, and patients with fatty density breasts, respectively. Conclusion Patient characteristics influenced the case and risk scores of a Food and Drug Administration-approved AI algorithm analyzing negative screening DBT examinations. © RSNA, 2024.

Demographics and Clinical Decision Making in Patients with Germline Moderate Penetrance Non-BRCA Mutations in Breast Cancer Related Genes.

BACKGROUND: Management of pathogenic variants in high penetrance genes related to breast cancer (BC), such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are well established. However, moderate penetrance mutations are understudied. We aim to compare risk reduction decision-making patterns in patients with a moderate penetrance BC-related genetic mutations, without a prior BC diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Female patients aged ≥ 18 years who tested positive for a BRCA1/2, high penetrance, or moderate penetrance mutation related to BC between 1996 and 2023 without a concurrent or prior BC diagnosis were retrospectively identified from a single academic center's database. Groups were stratified by mutation type: BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCA1, BRCA2), high penetrance mutations (HPM; CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53), or moderate penetrance mutations (MPM; ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, NF1, RAD51C, RAD51D). Demographics and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 66% (n = 350) having a BRCA1/2 mutation, 8% (n = 44) having HPM, and 25% (n = 134) having MPM; the median follow-up was 56.0 months. In our cohort, 20.9% of patients with BRCA mutations, 9.1% with HPM, and 7.5% with MPM chose to undergo risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM). Within the moderate penetrance cohort, patients who chose to undergo RRM were younger at the time of genetic testing (39.4 vs. 47.5 years, p = 0.03) and had a higher number of family members with BC (2 vs. 1, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insights into the demographic characteristics and family history of patients with moderate penetrance mutations and those who pursue risk-reducing surgery.

Trajectory of Subsequent Breast Cancer Diagnoses in a Diverse Patient Cohort with Breast Atypia.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative breast atypical lesions, including atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasms (LIN), represent benign entities that confer an elevated risk of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer (IBC). However, the timing of disease progression is variable and risk factors associated with the trajectory of disease are unknown. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with ADH or LIN from 1992 to 2017 at an academic center were identified. Early progression was defined as DCIS or IBC diagnosed within 5 years following the initial atypia diagnosis. Unadjusted cancer-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Demographics, clinicopathologic features, and use of chemoprevention were compared between the early and late development groups. RESULTS: Overall, 418 patients were included-73.7% with ADH and 26.3% with LIN. Over a median follow up of 92.1 months, 71/418 (17.0%) patients developed IBC (57.7%) or DCIS (42.3%). Almost half (47.9%, 34/71) were diagnosed within 5 years of their initial atypia diagnosis, and 52.1% (37/71) were diagnosed after 5 years. Patient and atypia characteristics were not associated with rate of events or time to events. There was a trend of early events being more often ipsilateral (76.5% early vs. 54.1% late; p = 0.13) versus contralateral. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with breast atypia and long-term follow up, 17% experienced subsequent breast events, with approximately half of the events occurring within the first 5 years following the initial atypia diagnosis. Clinical features were not associated with the trajectory to subsequent events, supporting that atypia signals both local and overall malignancy risk.

Utility of Axillary Staging in Older Patients with HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in older patients remains controversial. Advancements in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed therapy have revolutionized disease response rates and prognosis, supporting efforts to re-evaluate the utility of SLNB. We aimed to assess the differences in treatment and overall survival (OS) in older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer based on SLNB. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2010-2020), patients ≥ 70 years of age diagnosed with cT1-2/cN0/M0, HER2-positive breast cancer were identified. Logistic regression assessed associations with SLNB, systemic therapy, and radiation. Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors associated with OS. Analyses were stratified by treatment sequence, i.e. upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by surgery. RESULTS: Of the 17,609 patients included, 94% underwent upfront surgery (n = 16,492) and the remaining underwent NAT (n = 1117). Those who underwent SLNB were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy, irrespective of nodal status {upfront surgery/systemic therapy (odds ratio [OR] 2.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-3.67); upfront surgery/radiation (OR 3.97, 95% CI 3.03-5.21); NAT/radiation (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.83-17.69)}. The breast pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was highest among the hormone receptor (HR)-negative/HER2-positive subtype (50.0%), of which none were found to be ypN+. Comorbidity burden was associated with significantly lower rates of adjuvant systemic therapy and worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent SLNB, regardless of pN status, were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy. Nodal positivity is exceedingly rare for patients with a breast pCR following NAT, especially among the HR-negative/HER2-positive subtype. It is reasonable to consider omission of SLNB in select subgroups of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Guideline-Concordant Surgical Care for Lobular Versus Ductal Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of surgical care is understudied for lobular inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), which is less common, more chemotherapy-resistant, and more mammographically occult than ductal IBC. We compared guideline-concordant surgery (modified radical mastectomy [MRM] without immediate reconstruction following chemotherapy) for lobular versus ductal IBC. METHODS:  Female individuals with cT4dM0 lobular and ductal IBC were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010-2019. Modified radical mastectomy receipt was identified via codes for "modified radical mastectomy" or "mastectomy" and "≥10 lymph nodes removed" (proxy for axillary lymph node dissection). Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t-tests were used. RESULTS: A total of 1456 lobular and 10,445 ductal IBC patients were identified; 599 (41.1%) with lobular and 4859 (46.5%) with ductal IBC underwent MRMs (p = 0.001). Patients with lobular IBC included a higher proportion of individuals with cN0 disease (20.5% lobular vs. 13.7% ductal) and no lymph nodes examined at surgery (31.2% vs. 24.5%) but were less likely to be node-negative at surgery (12.7% vs. 17.1%, all p < 0.001). Among those who had lymph nodes removed at surgery, patients with lobular IBC also had fewer lymph nodes excised versus patients with ductal IBC (median [interquartile range], 7 (0-15) vs. 9 (0-17), p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lobular IBC patients were more likely to present with node-negative disease and less likely to be node-negative at surgery, despite having fewer, and more frequently no, lymph nodes examined versus ductal IBC patients. Future studies should investigate whether these treatment disparities are because of surgical approach, pathologic assessment, and/or data quality as captured in the NCDB.

Omission of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Residual Nodal Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Axillary management after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is evolving but axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains the standard of care for patients with residual nodal disease. The results of the Alliance A011202 trial evaluating the oncologic safety of ALND omission in this cohort are pending but we hypothesize that ALND omission is already increasing. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients diagnosed with cT1-3N1M0 breast cancer who underwent NAC and had residual nodal disease (ypN1mi-2) from 2012 to 2021. Temporal trends in omission of completion ALND were assessed annually. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models were used to identify factors associated with ALND omission and overall survival (OS), respectively. RESULTS: A total of 6101 patients were included; the majority presented with cT2 disease (57%), with 69% HER2+, 23% triple-negative, and 8% hormone receptor-positive/HER2-. Overall, 34% underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone. Rates of ALND were the lowest in the last 4 years of observation. After adjustment, treatment at community centers (vs. academic) and lower pathologic nodal burden were associated with omission of ALND. ALND omission was associated with a higher unadjusted OS (5-year OS: 86% SLNB alone vs. 84% ALND; log-rank p = 0.03), however this association was not maintained after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the impending release of the Alliance A011202 results, omission of ALND in patients with residual nodal disease after NAC is increasing. This practice appears more prominent in community centers and in patients with a lower burden of residual nodal disease. No association with OS was noted.

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Older Patients: Does SLNB Guide Therapy?

BACKGROUND: Older breast cancer patients represent a heterogeneous population. Studies demonstrate that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) omission may be appropriate in some clinical scenarios, yet patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) are often excluded from these studies. This study evaluated differences in treatment and survival for older patients with TNBC based on SLNB receipt and result. METHODS: Patients 70 years old or older with a diagnosis of cT1-2/cN0/M0 TNBC (2010-2019) who underwent surgery were selected from the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression estimated the association of SLNB with therapy, and Cox proportional hazards models estimated the association of SLNB with overall survival (OS) after adjustment for select factors. RESULTS: Of the 15,167 patients included in the study (median age, 77 years), 13.02% did not undergo SLNB, 5.14% had pN1 disease, 0.12% had pN2 disease, and 0.01% had pN3 disease. Most of the patients (83.9%) underwent surgery first, and 16.1% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of those who underwent surgery first and SLNB, 6.2% had pN+ disease. Receipt of SLNB was associated with a higher likelihood of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55-2.21), regardless of pN status. Compared with those who did not undergo a SLNB, a negative SLNB was significantly associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.63-0.75), although there was no difference for a positive SLNB (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.98-1.34). The patients receiving chemotherapy first showed no difference in survival based on SLNB receipt or result (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Most older patients with TNBC do not have nodal involvement and do not receive chemotherapy. The receipt and results of SLNB may be associated with outcomes for some who undergo surgery first, but not for those who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Rates of Pathologic Complete Response and Overall Survival in Patients with Inflammatory Breast Cancer: A National Cancer Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) have worse survival compared with stage III non-IBC matched cohorts; however, the prognostic significance of achieving pathologic complete response (pCR) in the setting of IBC is not well described. We evaluated overall survival (OS) between IBC patients and non-IBC patients who achieved pCR. METHODS: Adult females diagnosed in 2010-2018 with clinical prognostic stage III unilateral invasive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by surgery were selected from the National Cancer Database. Unadjusted OS from surgery was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association of study groups with OS after adjustment for available covariates. RESULTS: The study included 38,390 patients; n = 4600 (12.0%) IBC and n = 33,790 (88.0%) non-IBC. Overall pCR rates were lower for IBC compared with non-IBC (20.7% vs. 23.3%; p < 0.001). Among those achieving pCR, 5-year mortality was higher for IBC patients (16.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.9-19.1%) versus non-IBC patients (9.1%, 95% CI 8.4-9.8%; log-rank p < 0.001). Among all patients achieving pCR, IBC remained associated with worse OS compared with non-IBC (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.19-1.85; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found a lower pCR rate and worse OS in IBC patients compared with non-IBC stage III patients. Despite effective systemic therapies, achieving a pCR for IBC patients may not carry the same prognostic impact compared with non-IBC stage III patients.

Disease-specific survival outcomes for patients after locoregional treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery alone, breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiation treatment, and mastectomy are guideline-concordant treatments for ductal carcinoma in situ. The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes between these treatment options. METHODS: A stratified random sample of patients diagnosed with pure ductal carcinoma in situ between 2008 and 2014 was selected from 1330 sites in the USA. Data on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up were abstracted by local cancer registrars. Population-averaged marginal estimates of disease-specific survival and overall survival for breast-conserving surgery alone, breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment, and mastectomy were obtained by combining sampling and overlap weights. RESULTS: A total of 18 442 women were included, with a median follow-up of 67.8 (interquartile range 46.1-93.5) months. A total of 35 women died from breast cancer, at a median age of 62 (interquartile range 50-74) years. Population-averaged 8-year rates of disease-specific survival were 99.6% or higher for all treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups (breast-conserving surgery alone versus breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment, HR 1.19 (95% c.i. 0.29 to 4.85); and mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment, HR 1.74 (95% c.i. 0.53 to 5.72). There was no difference in overall survival between the patients who underwent a mastectomy and the patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment (HR 1.09 (95% c.i. 0.83 to 1.43)). Patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery alone had lower overall survival compared with the patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment (HR 1.29 (95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.67)). This survival difference vanished for all but one subgroup, namely patients less than 65 years (HR 1.86 (95% c.i. 1.15 to 3.00)). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in disease-specific survival between women operated with breast-conserving surgery alone, breast-conserving surgery with radiation treatment, or mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Given the low absolute risk of disease-specific mortality, these results provide confidence in offering individualized locoregional treatment without fear of compromising survival.

Assessment of Treatment Sequence in Patients With Stage III Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Stage III breast cancer is defined as locally advanced breast cancer and is treated with curative intent. Historically, overall survival (OS) did not differ based on treatment sequence (neoadjuvant chemotherapy [NAC] followed by surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy). Given recent advancements, we examined if treatment sequence may be associated with improved OS in a contemporary cohort of patients with stage III breast cancer. METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years with prognostic stage III breast cancer who received chemotherapy and surgery were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were stratified by treatment sequence (NAC versus surgery first). Unadjusted OS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of treatment sequence with OS and BCSS after adjustment for selected covariates. RESULTS: The study included 26,573 patients; median follow-up was 62.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.0-63.0). Patients receiving NAC had a worse OS and BCSS compared to those who underwent surgery first (5-year OS rates 0.66 versus 0.73; 5-year BCSS rates 0.70 versus 0.77; both log-rank P < 0.001). After adjustment for tumor subtype, receipt of NAC (versus surgery first) remained associated with a worse OS (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% CI 1.2-1.34, P < 0.001) and BCSS (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.27-1.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from patients treated largely before 2020, undergoing surgery first may be associated with improved survival, even after adjustment for known covariates including tumor subtype. These findings may inform treatment when caring for patients with operable, locally advanced breast cancer.

Anatomy Versus Biology: What Guides Chemotherapy Decisions in Older Patients With Breast Cancer?

INTRODUCTION: With the increasing utilization of genomic assays, such as the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), the relevance of anatomic staging has been questioned for select older patients with breast cancer. We sought to evaluate differences in chemotherapy receipt and/or survival among older patients based on RS and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) receipt/result. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 65 diagnosed with pT1-2/cN0/M0 hormone-receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-breast cancer (2010-2019) were selected from the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with chemotherapy receipt. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of RS/SLNB group with overall survival. A cost-benefit study was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 75,428 patients included, the majority had an intermediate RS (58.2% versus 27.9% low, 13.8% high) and were SLNB- (85.1% versus 11.6% SLNB+, 3.3% none). Chemotherapy was recommended for 13,442 patients (17.8%). After adjustment, chemotherapy receipt was more likely with higher RS and SLNB+. After adjustment, SLNB receipt/result was only associated with overall survival among those with an intermediate RS. However, returning to the OR for SLNB is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: SLNB receipt/result was associated with survival for those with an intermediate RS, but not a low or high RS, suggesting that an SLNB may indeed be unnecessary for select older patients with breast cancer.

Implications of missing data on reported breast cancer mortality.

BACKGROUND: National cancer registries are valuable tools to analyze patterns of care and clinical outcomes; yet, missing data may impact the accuracy and generalizability of these data. We sought to evaluate the association between missing data and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Using the NCDB (National Cancer Database) and SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results Program), we assessed data missingness among patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2014. Key variables included demographic (age, race, ethnicity, insurance, education, income), tumor (grade, ER, PR, HER2, TNM stages), and treatment (surgery in both databases; chemotherapy and radiation in NCDB). OS was compared between those with and without missing data using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 775,996 patients in the NCDB and 263,016 in SEER were identified; missing at least 1 key variable occurred for 29% and 13%, respectively. Of those, the overwhelming majority (NCDB 80%; SEER 88%) were missing tumor variables. When compared to patients with complete data, missingness was associated with a greater risk of death: NCDB HR 1.23 (99% CI 1.21-1.25) and SEER HR 2.11 (99% CI 2.05-2.18). Patients with complete tumor data had higher unadjusted OS estimates than that of the entire sample: NCDB 82.7% vs 81.8% and SEER 83.5% vs 81.7% for 5-year OS. CONCLUSIONS: Missingness of select variables is not uncommon within large national cancer registries and is associated with a worse OS. Exclusion of patients with missing variables may introduce unintended bias into analyses and result in findings that underestimate breast cancer mortality.

Surveillance Imaging after Primary Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening Practices Reported Via an Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening guidelines differ between organizations, and significant variations in practice patterns exist. Previous evidence suggests that provider-level factors are the greatest contributors to risk assessment and screening practice variability. This study aimed to characterize provider factors associated with breast cancer risk assessment and screening practice patterns, and to assess perceived barriers to providing risk assessment. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to providers at a single academic institution and to providers publicly via social media (January to August 2022). Respondents in the United States who care for adult women at risk for the development of breast cancer were included. RESULTS: Most of the respondents in the 143 completed surveys were white/Caucasian (79%) females (90%) age 50 years or younger (79%), and whereas 97% discuss breast cancer screening with their patients, only 90% order screening mammograms. Risk factor assessment was common (93%), typically performed at the first visit (51%). Additional training in genetics or risk assessment was uncommon (17%), although the majority were interested but did not have the time or resources (55%). Although most (64%) did not perceive barriers to providing risk assessment or appropriate screening, the most common barriers were time (77%) and education (55%). Barriers were more common among family practice or obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) providers and those who worked in an academic setting (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk assessment and screening practices are highly variable. Although time is the major barrier to providing risk assessment, providers also need education. Primary care organizations could partner with breast cancer-focused societies for additional resources.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Endocrine Therapy for Older Patients with Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer: Comparison of Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy are well established, yet outcomes for older women are understudied. We sought to examine the pCR and overall survival (OS) rates of women with estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer across age groups. METHODS: Women diagnosed with cT1-4, N0-3, M0, ER+/HER2- breast cancer (2010-2018) who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) followed by surgery were selected from the National Cancer Database and categorized by age. Differences were tested, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of response with OS after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: In the 43,009-patient cohort, 84.8% received NACT and 15.2% received NET. Of those aged ≥ 70 (N = 5623), 51.0% received NACT, and 49.0% received NET. Compared with younger women receiving NACT, older women were less likely to have a breast or nodal pCR [no pCR by age: 85.1% (≥ 70 years) vs 82.2% (50-69 years) vs 77.7% (< 50 years), p < 0.001]. Rates of pCR were similarly low for all women receiving NET [no pCR by age: 95.6% (≥ 70 years) vs 95% (50-69 years) vs 96% (< 50 years), p = 0.06]. After adjustment, pCR after NACT was not associated with OS for older patients, but better survival outcomes were noted for older patients achieving pCR after NET. CONCLUSION: For women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer, pCR rates after NACT are lower in older women compared with younger women, and are equally low after NET for all women. However, pCR after NET is associated with improved OS among older women, unlike pCR after NACT.