Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system. METHODS: Patients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy. RESULTS: The majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

[A woman with a painful swelling in the breast]. / Een vrouw met een pijnlijke zwelling in de borst.

BACKGROUND: A hibernoma is a rare benign lipomatous tumour, consisting of brown and white fat cells. In general, a hibernoma is an asymptomatic swelling that increases slowly in size, but it can sometimes cause pain. CASE DESPRIPTION: A 62-year-old woman presented at the breast clinic with a painful swelling in the right breast that was increasing in size. Radiological examination initially suggested a hamartoma. However, on the basis of histological examination of a biopsy, the diagnosis of hibernoma was made. The hibernoma was removed surgically. CONCLUSION: A hibernoma of the breast can grow to such a size that pain can arise due to compression of the mammary parenchyma. Surgical resection is only indicated if the hibernoma causes symptoms or for cosmetic reasons.

Identifying pathologic complete response of the breast after neoadjuvant systemic therapy with ultrasound guided biopsy to eventually omit surgery: Study design and feasibility of the MICRA trial (Minimally Invasive Complete Response Assessment).

PURPOSE: Improvements in neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for breast cancer patients have led to increasing rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The MICRA trial (NTR6120) aims at identifying pCR with post-NST biopsies. Here, we report the study design and feasibility. METHODS: The MICRA-trial is a multi-center prospective cohort study. Patients with a pre-NST placed marker and radiologic complete (rCR) or partial response on MRI after NST are eligible for inclusion. Ultrasound guided biopsy of the original tumor area is performed. Pathology results of the biopsies and surgery specimens are compared. The primary endpoint is false-negative rate of biopsies in identifying pCR. RESULTS: During the first year of the trial 58 patients with rCR were included. One patient was a screening failure and excluded for analysis. Twenty-one percent had hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- tumors, 21% HR+/HER2+ tumors, 18% HR-/HER2+ tumors and 40% TN tumors. Overall pCR was 68%. In seven patients biopsies could not be obtained: in 6 patients, the marker could not be identified on ultrasound in the OR and in 1 patient there were technical difficulties. A median of eight biopsies was obtained (range 4-9). The median of histopathological representative biopsies was 4 (range 1-8). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guided biopsy of the breast in patients with excellent response on MRI after NST is feasible. Accuracy results of the MICRA trial will be presented after inclusion of 525 patients to determine if ultrasound guided biopsy is an accurate alternative to surgical resection for assessment of pCR after NST.

Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with unifocal, non-palpable breast cancer were recruited. They received concurrent placement of the magnetic marker in addition to a radioactive iodine seed, which is standard of care in our clinic. In a subset of five patients, migration of the magnetic marker was studied. During surgery, a magnetic probe and gammaprobe were alternately used to localise the markers and guide surgery. The primary outcome parameter was successful transcutaneous identification of the magnetic marker. Additionally, data on radiologist and surgeon satisfaction were collected. RESULTS: Magnetic marker placement was successful in all cases. Radiologists could easily adapt to the technology in the clinical workflow. Migration of the magnetic marker was negligible. The primary endpoint of the study was met with an identification rate of 100%. Both radiologists and surgeons reflected that the technology was intuitive to use and that it was comparable to radioactive iodine seed localisation. CONCLUSION: Magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer is feasible and safe, and may be a viable non-radioactive alternative to current localisation technologies.