Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients.

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases annually are diagnosed in young women, and this continues to be the leading cause of death in women age 20 to 49. Young, premenopausal breast cancer patients present with more advanced stages and with a higher proportion of aggressive subtypes such as triple negative and HER2-enriched tumors. Recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age threshold to initiate screening mammograms to age 40 to aid in earlier detection. Young age at diagnosis increases the likelihood for a pathogenic mutation, and genetic testing is recommended for all patients age 50 and younger. This population is often underrepresented in landmark clinical trials, and data is extrapolated for the treatment of young women with breast cancer. Despite there being no survival benefit to more extensive surgical treatments, such as mastectomy or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, many patients opt against breast conservation. Young patients with breast cancer face issues related to treatment toxicities, potential overtreatment of their disease, mental health, sexual health, and fertility preservation. This unique population requires a multidisciplinary care team of physicians, surgeons, genetic counselors, fertility specialists, mental health professionals, physical therapists, and dieticians to provide individualized, comprehensive care. Our aim is to (1) provide a narrative review of retrospective studies, relevant society guidelines, and clinical trials focused on the contemporary treatment and management of YBC patients and (2) discuss important nuances in their care as a guide for members of their multidisciplinary treatment team.

Breast Cancer Recurrence by Subtype in a Diverse, Contemporary Cohort of Young Women.

BACKGROUND: Young breast cancer (YBC) patients are a unique subpopulation that are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials. Furthermore, large national cancer databases lack detailed information on recurrence, a meaningful oncologic outcome for young patients. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of YBC patients (age 40 years or younger) with stage I to III breast cancer diagnosed from 2008 to 2018 was performed. Information on clinicopathologic characteristics, demographics, and outcomes was obtained from the electronic health record and chart review. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparisons of categorical variables and parametric and nonparametric tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,431 women with a median follow-up of 4.8 years (range 0.3 to 12.9 years). The median age was 37 years (interquartile range 34 to 39). The study population included 598 (41.8%) White, 112 (7.8%) Black, 420 (29.4%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 281 (19.6%) Hispanic, and 20 (1.4%) "other" race/ethnicity patients. Tumor subtype was as follows: [1] hormone receptor (HR) + /human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2 - ), grade (G) 1 to 2 = 541 (37.8%); [2] HR + /HER2 - , G3 = 268 (18.7%); [3] HR + /HER2 + = 262 (18.3%); [4] HR - /HER2 + = 101 (7.1%); [5] HR - /HER2 - = 259 (18.1%). The majority (64.2%) presented with stage II/III disease. There were 230 (16.1%) recurrences during follow-up; 74.8% were distant. Locoregional-only recurrence was seen in 17 of 463 (3.7%) patients who underwent breast conservation vs 41 of 968 (4.2%) patients undergoing mastectomy (p < 0.001). Recurrence varied by tumor subtype: [1] HR + /HER2 - , G1 to 2 (14.0%); [2] HR + /HER2 - , G3 (20.9%); [3] HR + /HER2 + (11.1%); [4] HR - /HER2 + (22.8%); [5] HR - /HER2 - (17.8%) (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, diverse YBC cohort, recurrences were most frequent among HR + /HER2 - , G3, or HR - /HER2 + invasive tumors; most were distant. There were numerically similar locoregional-only recurrences after breast conservation vs mastectomy. Additional research is needed to identify predictors of recurrence.

Telehealth for Preoperative Evaluation of Patients With Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic drove rapid, widespread adoption of telehealth (TH). We evaluated surgical telehealth utilization and outcomes for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients during the initial pandemic period. Methods We identified patients with breast cancer diagnosed March 17, 2020 through May 17, 2020 who underwent surgery as the initial treatment. Clinicodemographic characteristics were collected. Initial consultation types (office, telephone, or video) were categorized. Outcomes included time to consultation, surgeon touchpoints, time to surgery, surgery types, and reexcision rates. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney tests or t-tests, and categorical variables were compared using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Results Of 158 patients, 56% had initial telehealth consultations (21% telephone, 35% video) and 42% did not have a preoperative physical examination. Age, race/ethnicity, and stage distributions were similar between initial visit types. Median time to consultation was lower in the initial telehealth group than the office group (6 days vs 9 days, p = 0.01). Other outcomes (surgeon touchpoints, time to surgery, surgery type, reconstruction) were similar between visit types. We observed higher reexcision rates in patients with initial telehealth visits (20% telehealth vs 4% office, p = 0.01), but evaluation was limited by small numbers. The reexcision rate was 13% for patients with telehealth visits and no preoperative physical exam. Discussion During the initial pandemic period, the majority of new breast cancer patients had an initial telehealth surgical consultation. Office and telehealth consultation visits had comparable numbers of postconsultation surgeon touchpoints and most outcomes. Our findings suggest that telehealth consultations may be feasible for preoperative breast cancer consultations.

Economic Impact of Reducing Reexcision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Reexcision after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is costly for patients, but few studies have captured the economic burden to a healthcare system. We quantified operating room (OR) charges as well as OR time and then modeled expected savings of a reexcision reduction initiative. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of all breast cancer patients with BCS between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Operating room charges of disposable supplies and implants as well as operative time were calculated. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, the 8804 patients who underwent BCS, 1628 (18.5%) required reexcision. The reexcision cohort was younger (61 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (23.7% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), and had larger tumors (T1+T2 73.2% vs. 83.1%, p < 0.001). Reexcision costs represented 39% of total costs, the cost per patient for surgery was fourfold higher for reexcision patients. Reexcision operations comprised 14% of total operating room (OR) time (1848 of 13,030 hours). The reexcision rate for 54 surgeons varied from 7.2-39.0% with 46% (n = 25) having a reexcision rate >20%. A model simulating reducing reexcision rates to 20% or below for all surgeons reduced the reexcision rate to 16.2% overall. Using per procedure data, the model predicted a decrease in reexcision operations by 18% (327 operations), OR costs by 14% ($287,534), and OR time by 11% (204 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Reexcision after BCS represents 39% of direct OR costs and 14% of OR time in our healthcare system. Modest improvements in surgeon reexcision rates may lead to significant economic and OR time savings.

Care in the time of COVID-19: impact on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in a large, integrated health care system.

PURPOSES: To delineate operational changes in Kaiser Permanente Northern California breast care and evaluate the impact of these changes during the initial COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place period (SiP, 3/17/20-5/17/20). METHODS: By extracting data from institutional databases and reviewing electronic medical charts, we compared clinical and treatment characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed 3/17/20-5/17/20 to those diagnosed 3/17/19-5/17/2019. Outcomes included time from biopsy to consultation and treatment. Comparisons were made using Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Fewer new breast cancers were diagnosed in 2020 during the SiP period than during a similar period in 2019 (n = 247 vs n = 703). A higher percentage presented with symptomatic disease in 2020 than 2019 (78% vs 37%, p < 0.001). Higher percentages of 2020 patients presented with grade 3 (37% vs 25%, p = 0.004) and triple-negative tumors (16% vs 10%, p = 0.04). A smaller percentage underwent surgery first in 2020 (71% vs 83%, p < 0.001) and a larger percentage had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (16% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Telehealth utilization increased from 0.8% in 2019 to 70.0% in 2020. Times to surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were shorter in 2020 than 2019 (19 vs 26 days, p < 0.001, and 23 vs 28 days, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During SiP, fewer breast cancers were diagnosed than during a similar period in 2019, and a higher proportion presented with symptomatic disease. Early-stage breast cancer diagnoses decreased, while metastatic cancer diagnoses remained similar. Telehealth increased significantly, and times to treatment were shorter in 2020 than 2019. Our system continued to provide timely breast cancer treatment despite significant pandemic-driven disruption.

Adoption of Opioid-Sparing and Non-Opioid Regimens After Breast Surgery in a Large, Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative prescriptions have contributed to the opioid epidemic. In response, a large, integrated health care delivery system implemented initiatives to reduce outpatient opioid prescriptions. We evaluated the impact of these interventions on opioid-prescribing practices after breast surgery. METHODS: We examined postoperative prescribing practices before and after the 2016-2018 intervention period. Primary endpoints were the use of non-opioid regimens (NORs) and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed for postoperative pain management, while secondary endpoints were emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS: In a survey of breast surgeons, 23% reported using NORs in 2017 versus 79% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Comparing 1917 breast operations from 2016 with 2166 operations from 2019, NORs increased from 9% in 2016 to 39% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Average discharge MMEs per operation decreased from 190 in 2016 to 106 in 2019 (p < 0.001). NOR failure (defined as an additional opioid prescription within 2 weeks of surgery) was < 1%. Significantly fewer postoperative ED visits occurred in the NOR group (1.9% NOR vs. 3.4% opioid regimen [OR]; p < 0.001). The 7-day readmission rates for NOR and OR patients were similar (0.49% NOR vs. 0.32% OR; p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Between 2016 and 2019, breast surgeons in a large, integrated health care delivery system adopted NORs for nearly 40% of breast operations, and prescribed significantly fewer MMEs, with no increases in ED visits or readmissions for NOR patients. This suggests that initiatives to decrease opioid prescribing were successful and that a NOR for pain management after breast surgery is feasible.

Endocrine Tumor Board: Ten Years' Experience of a Multidisciplinary Clinical Working Conference.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in specialized medical areas and updated clinical guidelines show a need for a focused approach for patients with specific disorders. OBJECTIVE: To describe a multidisciplinary tumor board for patients with endocrine tumors. METHODS: We established an endocrine tumor board at a large health maintenance organization and studied cases presented between September 2007 and August 2017. To resolve diagnostic and/or therapeutic questions, a multidisciplinary team of specialists discussed patients' clinical presentations. Cases were broken down into diagnostic categories, demographic characteristics (age, sex), and need for repeated presentations to the board. RESULTS: We included 608 patients: 401 female (66%) and 207 male (34%). Ages ranged from teens to more than 90 years, with the peak decade 50 to 59 years (26%). Although most patients needed only 1 presentation to the board, 151 (25%) required representation, for a total of 853 presentations. The diagnoses reflected the workup status with tumor identification and localization at the initial case presentation. Diagnoses included thyroid cancer (234 patients, 38.4%), adrenal mass (165 patients, 27.1%), primary hyperparathyroidism (120 patients, 19.7%), thyroid nodule (95 patients, 15.6%), and extrathyroidal mass (23 patients, 3.8%). Other diagnoses composed the remaining 14.6%. Tumor board attendees overwhelmingly supported the meetings' benefits, with all clinicians reporting frequently changing patient management because of the meetings. CONCLUSION: Patients with endocrine tumors may benefit from a specialized approach to care. A multidisciplinary tumor board can focus discussions efficiently, provide a forum to advance care, apply endocrine-related clinical guidelines, and lead to recommendations that clinicians often employed.

Evidence-Based Workflows for Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery.

A need exists to reduce care variations by standardizing the practice of thyroid and parathyroid surgery. During the course of a year, a task force developed algorithms representing decision points and workflows based on American Thyroid Association guidelines and three internal studies of surgical practices in the Northern and Southern California Regions of Kaiser Permanente conducted in collaboration with Health Information Technology Transformation & Analytics (HITTA).