Breast conserving surgery with intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy for low-risk breast cancer: Five-year follow-up of 306 patients.

Recent studies have reported a higher than expected risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) and a single dose of electron beam intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT). This finding was the rationale to perform a retrospective single center cohort study evaluating the oncologic results of consecutive patients treated with BCS and IORT. Women were eligible if they had clinical low-risk (N0, ≤2 cm unifocal, Bloom and Richardson grade 1-2), estrogen receptor-positive and human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative breast cancer. Prior to BCS, pN0 status was determined by sentinel lymph node biopsy. Data on oncologic follow-up were analyzed. Between 2012 and 2019, 306 consecutive patients were treated and analyzed, with a median age of 67 (50-86) years at diagnosis. Median follow-up was 60 (8-120) months. Five-year cumulative risk of IBTR was 13.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.4-17.4). True in field recurrence was present in 3.9% of the patients. In 4.6% of the patients, the IBRT was classified as a local recurrence due to seeding of tumor cells in the cutis or subcutis most likely related to percutaneous biopsy. In 2.9% of the patients, the IBRT was a new outfield primary tumor. Three patients had a regional lymph node recurrence and two had distant metastases as first event. One breast cancer-related death was observed. Estimated 5-year overall survival was 89.8% (95% CI 86.0-93.6). In conclusion, although some of IBTR cases could have been prevented by adaptations in biopsy techniques and patient selection, BCS followed by IORT was associated with a substantial risk of IBTR.

Psychosocial factors, health behaviors and risk of cancer incidence: Testing interaction and effect modification in an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Depression, anxiety and other psychosocial factors are hypothesized to be involved in cancer development. We examined whether psychosocial factors interact with or modify the effects of health behaviors, such as smoking and alcohol use, in relation to cancer incidence. Two-stage individual participant data meta-analyses were performed based on 22 cohorts of the PSYchosocial factors and CAncer (PSY-CA) study. We examined nine psychosocial factors (depression diagnosis, depression symptoms, anxiety diagnosis, anxiety symptoms, perceived social support, loss events, general distress, neuroticism, relationship status), seven health behaviors/behavior-related factors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, sedentary behavior, sleep quality, sleep duration) and seven cancer outcomes (overall cancer, smoking-related, alcohol-related, breast, lung, prostate, colorectal). Effects of the psychosocial factor, health behavior and their product term on cancer incidence were estimated using Cox regression. We pooled cohort-specific estimates using multivariate random-effects meta-analyses. Additive and multiplicative interaction/effect modification was examined. This study involved 437,827 participants, 36,961 incident cancer diagnoses, and 4,749,481 person years of follow-up. Out of 744 combinations of psychosocial factors, health behaviors, and cancer outcomes, we found no evidence of interaction. Effect modification was found for some combinations, but there were no clear patterns for any particular factors or outcomes involved. In this first large study to systematically examine potential interaction and effect modification, we found no evidence for psychosocial factors to interact with or modify health behaviors in relation to cancer incidence. The behavioral risk profile for cancer incidence is similar in people with and without psychosocial stress.

Invasive recurrence after breast conserving treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the Netherlands: time trends and the association with tumour grade.

BACKGROUND: The first aim of this study was to examine trends in the risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A second aim was to analyse the association between DCIS grade and the risk of iIBC following BCS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, the Netherlands Cancer Registry collected information on 25,719 women with DCIS diagnosed in the period 1989-2021 who underwent BCS. Of these 19,034 received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression models were used. RESULTS: A total of 1135 patients experienced iIBC. Ten-year cumulative incidence rates of iIBC for patients diagnosed in the periods 1989-1998, 1999-2008 and 2009-2021 undergoing BCS without RT, were 12.6%, 9.0% and 5.0% (P < 0.001), respectively. For those undergoing BCS with RT these figures were 5.7%, 3.7% and 2.2%, respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analyses, DCIS grade was not associated with the risk of iIBC. CONCLUSION: Since 1989 the risk of iIBC has decreased substantially and has become even lower than the risk of invasive contralateral breast cancer. No significant association of DCIS grade with iIBC was found, stressing the need for more powerful prognostic factors to guide the treatment of DCIS.

Long-term trends in incidence, characteristics and prognosis of screen-detected and interval cancers in women participating in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: No studies are available in which changes over time in characteristics and prognosis of patients with interval breast cancers (ICs) and screen-detected breast cancers (SDCs) have been compared. The aim was to study these trends between 1995 and 2018. METHODS: All women with invasive SDCs (N = 4290) and ICs (N = 1352), diagnosed in a southern mammography screening region in the Netherlands, were included and followed until date of death or 31 December 2022. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival rate of women with SDCs increased from 91.4% for those diagnosed in 1995-1999 to 95.0% for those diagnosed in 2013-2018 (P < 0.001), and from 74.8 to 91.6% (P < 0.001) in the same periods for those with ICs. A similar trend was observed for the 10-year survival rates. After adjustment for changes in tumour characteristics, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.59) for women with SDCs diagnosed in the period 2013-2018, compared to the women diagnosed in the period 1995-1999. For the women with ICs this HR was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.19-0.40). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of women with ICs has improved rapidly since 1995 and is now almost similar to that of women with SDCs.

Long-term outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve, triple-negative breast cancer patients according to BRCA1 status.

BACKGROUND: Due to the abundant usage of chemotherapy in young triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients, the unbiased prognostic value of BRCA1-related biomarkers in this population remains unclear. In addition, whether BRCA1-related biomarkers modify the well-established prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) is unknown. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients according to BRCA1 status, taking sTILs into account. METHODS: We included 485 Dutch women diagnosed with node-negative TNBC under age 40 between 1989 and 2000. During this period, these women were considered low-risk and did not receive chemotherapy. BRCA1 status, including pathogenic germline BRCA1 mutation (gBRCA1m), somatic BRCA1 mutation (sBRCA1m), and tumor BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1-PM), was assessed using DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. sTILs were assessed according to the international guideline. Patients' outcomes were compared using Cox regression and competing risk models. RESULTS: Among the 399 patients with BRCA1 status, 26.3% had a gBRCA1m, 5.3% had a sBRCA1m, 36.6% had tumor BRCA1-PM, and 31.8% had BRCA1-non-altered tumors. Compared to BRCA1-non-alteration, gBRCA1m was associated with worse overall survival (OS) from the fourth year after diagnosis (adjusted HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.18-3.75), and this association attenuated after adjustment for second primary tumors. Every 10% sTIL increment was associated with 16% higher OS (adjusted HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) in gBRCA1m, sBRCA1m, or BRCA1-non-altered patients and 31% higher OS in tumor BRCA1-PM patients. Among the 66 patients with tumor BRCA1-PM and ≥ 50% sTILs, we observed excellent 15-year OS (97.0%; 95% CI, 92.9-100%). Conversely, among the 61 patients with gBRCA1m and < 50% sTILs, we observed poor 15-year OS (50.8%; 95% CI, 39.7-65.0%). Furthermore, gBRCA1m was associated with higher (adjusted subdistribution HR, 4.04; 95% CI, 2.29-7.13) and tumor BRCA1-PM with lower (adjusted subdistribution HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95) incidence of second primary tumors, compared to BRCA1-non-alteration. CONCLUSIONS: Although both gBRCA1m and tumor BRCA1-PM alter BRCA1 gene transcription, they are associated with different outcomes in young, node-negative, chemotherapy-naïve TNBC patients. By combining sTILs and BRCA1 status for risk classification, we were able to identify potential subgroups in this population to intensify and optimize adjuvant treatment.

Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Treatment, an Underreported Burden for Breast Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who have undergone surgery experience persistent pain after breast cancer treatment (PPBCT). These symptoms often remain unnoticed by treating physician(s), and the pathophysiology of PPBCT remains poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to determine prevalence of PPBCT and examine the association between PPBCT and various patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study enrolling patients with breast cancer treated at Máxima Medical Center between 2005 and 2016. PPBCT was defined as pain in the breast, anterior thorax, axilla, and/or medial upper arm that persists for at least 3 months after surgery. Tumor and treatment characteristics were derived from the Dutch Cancer Registry and electronic patient files. RESULTS: Between February and March 2019, a questionnaire was sent to 2022 women, of whom 56.5% responded. Prevalence of PPBCT among the responders was 37.9%, with 50.8% reporting moderate to severe pain. Multivariable analyses showed that women with signs of anxiety, depression or a history of smoking had a higher risk of experiencing PPBCT. Women aged 70 years or older at diagnosis were significantly less likely to report PPBCT compared with younger women. No significant association was found between PPBCT and treatment characteristics, including type of axillary surgery and radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable percentage of patients with breast cancer experience PPBCT. Women with signs of anxiety or depression and women with a history of smoking are more likely to report PPBCT. Further research is required to understand the underlying etiology and to improve prevention and treatment strategies for PPBCT.

The mediating role of health behaviors in the association between depression, anxiety and cancer incidence: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although behavioral mechanisms in the association among depression, anxiety, and cancer are plausible, few studies have empirically studied mediation by health behaviors. We aimed to examine the mediating role of several health behaviors in the associations among depression, anxiety, and the incidence of various cancer types (overall, breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, smoking-related, and alcohol-related cancers). METHODS: Two-stage individual participant data meta-analyses were performed based on 18 cohorts within the Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence consortium that had a measure of depression or anxiety (N = 319 613, cancer incidence = 25 803). Health behaviors included smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), sedentary behavior, and sleep duration and quality. In stage one, path-specific regression estimates were obtained in each cohort. In stage two, cohort-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects multivariate meta-analysis, and natural indirect effects (i.e. mediating effects) were calculated as hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Smoking (HRs range 1.04-1.10) and physical inactivity (HRs range 1.01-1.02) significantly mediated the associations among depression, anxiety, and lung cancer. Smoking was also a mediator for smoking-related cancers (HRs range 1.03-1.06). There was mediation by health behaviors, especially smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and a higher BMI, in the associations among depression, anxiety, and overall cancer or other types of cancer, but effects were small (HRs generally below 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking constitutes a mediating pathway linking depression and anxiety to lung cancer and smoking-related cancers. Our findings underline the importance of smoking cessation interventions for persons with depression or anxiety.

Depression, anxiety, and the risk of cancer: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to be related to an increased cancer risk. Despite the great amount of research that has been conducted, findings are inconclusive. To provide a stronger basis for addressing the associations between depression, anxiety, and the incidence of various cancer types (overall, breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, alcohol-related, and smoking-related cancers), individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses were performed within the Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. METHODS: The PSY-CA consortium includes data from 18 cohorts with measures of depression or anxiety (up to N = 319,613; cancer incidences, 25,803; person-years of follow-up, 3,254,714). Both symptoms and a diagnosis of depression and anxiety were examined as predictors of future cancer risk. Two-stage IPD meta-analyses were run, first by using Cox regression models in each cohort (stage 1), and then by aggregating the results in random-effects meta-analyses (stage 2). RESULTS: No associations were found between depression or anxiety and overall, breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers. Depression and anxiety (symptoms and diagnoses) were associated with the incidence of lung cancer and smoking-related cancers (hazard ratios [HRs], 1.06-1.60). However, these associations were substantially attenuated when additionally adjusting for known risk factors including smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety are not related to increased risk for most cancer outcomes, except for lung and smoking-related cancers. This study shows that key covariates are likely to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and lung and smoking-related cancers. PREREGISTRATION NUMBER: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=157677.

Clinical value of contralateral breast cancers detected by pre-operative MRI in patients diagnosed with DCIS: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), data about the impact of breast MRI at primary diagnosis on the incidence and characteristics of contralateral breast cancers are scarce. METHODS: We selected all 8486 women diagnosed with primary DCIS in the Netherlands in 2011-2015 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The synchronous and metachronous detection of contralateral DCIS (cDCIS) and contralateral invasive breast cancer (cIBC) was assessed for patients who received an MRI upon diagnosis (MRI group) and for an age-matched control group without MRI. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of patients received an MRI, of which 0.8% was diagnosed with synchronous cDCIS and 1.3% with synchronous cIBC not found by mammography. The 5-year cumulative incidence of synchronous plus metachronous cDCIS was higher for the MRI versus age-matched control group (2.0% versus 0.9%, p = 0.02) and similar for cIBC (3.5% versus 2.3%, p = 0.17). The increased incidence of cDCIS was observed in patients aged < 50 years (sHR = 4.22, 95% CI: 1.19-14.99), but not in patients aged 50-74 years (sHR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41-1.93). CONCLUSIONS: MRI at primary DCIS diagnosis detected additional synchronous cDCIS and cIBC, and was associated with a higher rate of metachronous cDCIS without decreasing the rate of metachronous cIBC. This finding was most evident in younger patients. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance imaging at primary diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ detected an additional synchronous breast lesion in 2.1% of patients. • In patients aged younger than 50 years, the use of pre-operative MRI was associated with a fourfold increase in the incidence of a second contralateral DCIS without decreasing the incidence of metachronous invasive breast cancers up to 5 years after diagnosis. • In patients aged over 50 years, the use of pre-operative MRI did not result in a difference in the incidence of a second contralateral DCIS or metachronous invasive breast cancer.

De-escalation of radiotherapy after primary chemotherapy in cT1-2N1 breast cancer (RAPCHEM; BOOG 2010-03): 5-year follow-up results of a Dutch, prospective, registry study.

BACKGROUND: Primary chemotherapy in breast cancer poses a dilemma with regard to adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy, as guidelines for locoregional radiotherapy were originally based on pathology results of primary surgery. We aimed to evaluate the oncological safety of de-escalated locoregional radiotherapy in patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to a predefined, consensus-based study guideline. METHODS: In this prospective registry study (RAPCHEM, BOOG 2010-03), patients referred to one of 17 participating radiation oncology centres in the Netherlands between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 1, 2015, with cT1-2N1 breast cancer (one to three suspicious nodes on imaging before primary chemotherapy, of which at least one had been pathologically confirmed), and who were treated with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla were included in the study. The study guideline comprised three risk groups for locoregional recurrence, with corresponding locoregional radiotherapy recommendations: no chest wall radiotherapy and no regional radiotherapy in the low-risk group, only local radiotherapy in the intermediate-risk group, and locoregional radiotherapy in the high-risk group. Radiotherapy consisted of a biologically equivalent dose of 25 fractions of 2 Gy, with or without a boost. During the study period, the generally applied radiotherapy technique in the Netherlands was forward-planned or inverse-planned intensity modulated radiotherapy. 5-year follow-up was assessed, taking into account adherence to the study guideline, with locoregional recurrence rate as primary endpoint. We hypothesised that 5-year locoregional recurrence rate would be less than 4% (upper-limit 95% CI 7·8%). This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01279304, and is completed. FINDINGS: 838 patients were eligible for 5-year follow-up analyses: 291 in the low-risk group, 370 in the intermediate-risk group, and 177 in the high-risk group. The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2·2% (95% CI 1·4-3·4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2·1% (0·9-4·3) in the low-risk group, 2·2% (1·0-4·1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2·3% (0·8-5·5) in the high-risk group. If the study guideline was followed, the locoregional recurrence rate was 2·3% (0·8-5·3) for the low-risk group, 1·0% (0·2-3·4) for the intermediate-risk group, and 1·4% (0·3-4·5) for the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: In this study, the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was less than 4%, which supports our hypothesis that it is oncologically safe to de-escalate locoregional radiotherapy based on locoregional recurrence risk, in selected patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy, according to this predefined, consensus-based study guideline. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society. TRANSLATION: For the Dutch translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Failure of stereotactic core needle biopsy in women recalled for suspicious calcifications at screening mammography: frequency, causes, and final outcome in a multi-institutional, observational follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) and its causes and final outcome in women recalled for calcifications at screening mammography. METHODS: We included a consecutive series of 624,039 screens obtained in a Dutch screening region between January 2009 and July 2019. Radiology reports and pathology results were obtained of all recalled women during 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3495 women (19.6% of 17,809 recalls) were recalled for suspicious calcifications. SCNB was indicated in 2818 women, of whom 12 had incomplete follow-up and another 12 women refused biopsy. DCIS or invasive cancer was diagnosed in 880 of the remaining 2794 women (31.5%). SCNB failed in 62 women (2.2%, 36/2794). These failures were mainly due to a too posterior (n = 30) or too superficial location (n = 17) of the calcifications or calcifications too faint for biopsy (n = 13). Of these 62 women, 10 underwent surgical biopsy, yielding one DCIS (intermediate grade) and two invasive cancers (one intermediate grade and one high grade) and another two women were diagnosed with DCIS (both high grade) at follow-up. Thus, the malignancy rate after SCNB failure was 8.1% (5/62). Calcifications were depicted neither at SCNB specimen radiography nor at pathology in 16 women after (repeated) SCNB (0.6%, 31/2732). None of them proved to have breast cancer at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of SCNB for suspicious calcifications is low but close surveillance is warranted, as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of these women. KEY POINTS: • The failure rate of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) for calcifications recalled at screening mammography was 2.2%. • Failures were mainly due to calcifications that could not be reached by SCNB or calcifications too faint for biopsy. • The management after failed SCNB was various. At least, close surveillance with a low threshold for surgical biopsy is recommended as breast cancer may be present in up to 8% of women with SCNB failure.

Frequency and diagnostic outcome of bilateral recall at screening mammography.

Our study was performed to determine the frequency of recall for bilateral breast lesions at screening mammography and compare its outcome with respect to unilateral recall. We included 329 132 screening mammograms (34 889 initial screens and 294 243 subsequent screens) from a Dutch screening mammography program between January 2013 and January 2018. During a 2-year follow-up, we collected radiological data, pathology reports and surgical reports of all recalled women. At bilateral recall, the lesion with the highest Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score was used as the index lesion when comparing screening mammography characteristics at bilateral vs unilateral recall. A total of 9806 women were recalled at screening (recall rate, 3.0%). Bilateral recall comprised 2.8% (271/9806) of all recalls. Biopsy was more frequently performed after bilateral recall than unilateral recall (54.6% [148/271] vs 44.1% [4201/9535], P < .001), yielding a lower positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy after bilateral recall (42.6% vs 51.7%, P = .029). The PPV of recall was comparable for both groups (23.2% [63/271] vs 22.8% [2173/9535], P = .85). Invasive cancers after bilateral recall were larger than those diagnosed after unilateral recall (P = .02), but histological subtype, histologic grading, receptor status and proportions of lymph node positive cancers were comparable. Bilateral recall infrequently occurs at screening mammography. Biopsy is more frequently performed following bilateral recall, but the PPV of recall is similar for unilateral and bilateral recall. Invasive cancers of both groups show comparable pathological features except of a larger tumor size after bilateral recall.

Comprehensive trends in incidence, treatment, survival and mortality of first primary invasive breast cancer stratified by age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017.

Our study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of trends in incidence, survival, mortality and treatment of first primary invasive breast cancer (BC), according to age, stage and receptor subtype in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2017. Data from all women diagnosed with first primary stage I to IV BC (N = 320 249) were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. BC mortality and general population data were retrieved from Statistics Netherlands. Age-standardised incidence and mortality rates were calculated with annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) statistics. The relative survival (RS) was used as estimator for disease-specific survival. The BC incidence for all BC patients combined significantly increased until 2013 from 126 to 158 per 100 000 person-years, after which a declining trend was observed. Surgery became less extensive, but (neo-)adjuvant systemic treatments and their combinations were given more frequently. The RS improved for all age groups and for most stages and receptor subtypes, but remained stable for all subtypes since 2012 to 2013 and since 2000 to 2009 for Stage IV BC at 15 years of follow-up. Overall, the 5- and 10-year RS increased from 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.1, 77.4) and 55.9% (95% CI: 54.7, 57.1) in 1989 to 1999 to 91.0% (95% CI: 90.5, 91.5) and 82.9% (95% CI: 82.2, 83.5), respectively, in 2010 to 2016. BC mortality improved regardless of age and overall decreased from 57 to 35 per 100 000 person-years between 1989 and 2017. In conclusion, the BC incidence in the Netherlands has steadily increased since 1989, but the latest trends show promising declines. Survival improved markedly for most patients and the mortality decreased regardless of age.

Patterns of treatment and outcome of ductal carcinoma in situ in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To spare DCIS patients from overtreatment, treatment de-escalated over the years. This study evaluates the influence of these developments on the patterns of care in the treatment of DCIS with particular interest in the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS), radiotherapy following BCS and the use and type of axillary staging. METHODS: In this large population-based cohort study all women, aged 50-74 years diagnosed with DCIS from January 1989 until January 2019, were analyzed per two-year cohort. RESULTS: A total of 30,417 women were diagnosed with DCIS. The proportion of patients undergoing BCS increased from 47.7% in 1995-1996 to 72.7% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Adjuvant radiotherapy following BCS increased from 28.9% (1995-1996) to 89.6% (2011-2012) and subsequently decreased to 74.9% (2017-2018; p < 0.001). Since its introduction, the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) increased to 63.1% in 2013-2014 and subsequently decreased to 52.8% in 2017-2018 (p < 0.001). Axillary surgery is already omitted in 55.8% of the patients undergoing BCS nowadays. The five-year invasive relapse-free survival (iRFS) for BCS with adjuvant radiotherapy in the period 1989-2010, was 98.7% [CI 98.4% - 99.0%], compared to 95.0% [CI 94.1% -95.8%] for BCS only (p < 0.001). In 2011-2018, this was 99.3% [CI 99.1% - 99.5%] and 98.8% [CI 98.2% - 99.4%] respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a shift toward less extensive treatment. DCIS is increasingly treated with BCS and less often followed by additional radiotherapy. The absence of radiotherapy still results in excellent iRFS. Axillary surgery is increasingly omitted in DCIS patients.

Repeat breast-conserving treatment of ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence: a nationwide survey amongst breast surgeons and radiation oncologists in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In line with the paradigm to minimize surgical morbidity in patients with primary breast cancer, there is increasing evidence for the safety of a repeat breast-conserving treatment (BCT) of an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) in selected patients. The conditions for the feasibility of a repeat BCT vary widely in literature. In clinical practice, many physicians have ongoing concerns about the oncological safety and possible toxicity of repeat BCT. AIM: To investigate the attitude of Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists towards repeat BCT and to report on their experiences with, objections against and perceived requirements to consider a repeat BCT in case of IBTR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey consisting of a maximum of 26 open and multiple-choice questions about repeat BCT for IBTR was distributed amongst Dutch breast surgeons and radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Forty-nine surgeons representing 49% of Dutch hospitals and 20 radiation oncologists representing 70% of Dutch radiation oncology centres responded. A repeat BCT was considered feasible in selected cases by 28.7% of breast surgeons and 55% of radiation oncologists. The most important factors to consider a repeat BCT for both groups were the patient's preference to preserve the breast and surgical feasibility of a second lumpectomy. Arguments against a repeat BCT were based on the perceived unacceptable toxicity and cosmesis of a second course of radiotherapy. The technique of preference for re-irradiation would be partial breast irradiation (PBI) according to all radiation oncologists. Differentiating between new primary tumours (NPT) and true recurrences (TR) was reported to be done by 57.1% of breast surgeons and 60% of radiation oncologists. The most important reason to differentiate between NPT and TR was to establish prognosis and to consider whether a repeat BCT would be feasible. CONCLUSION: An increasing number of Dutch breast cancer specialists is considering a repeat BCT feasible in selected cases, at the patient's preference and with partial breast re-irradiation.

The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Margin Status in Breast Cancer Patients Recalled at Biennial Screening Mammography: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the association between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical margin involvement, as well as to determine the factors associated with positive resection margins in screen-detected breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). METHODS: Breast cancer patients eligible for BCS and diagnosed after biennial screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands (2008-2017) were retrospectively included. Missing values were imputed and multivariable regression analyses were performed to analyze whether preoperative MRI was related to margin involvement after BCS, as well as to examine what factors were associated with positive resection margins, defined as more than focally (>4 mm) involved. RESULTS: Overall, 2483 patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled, of whom 123 (5.0%) had more than focally involved resection margins. In multivariable regression analyses, preoperative MRI was associated with a reduced risk of positive resection margins after BCS (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.96). Lobular histology (adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.68-4.87), large tumor size (per millimeter increase, adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), high (>75%) mammographic density (adjusted OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.07-12.12), and the presence of microcalcifications (adjusted OR 4.45, 95% CI 2.69-7.37) and architectural distortions (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.01-3.40) were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MRI was associated with lower risk of positive resection margins in patients with invasive breast cancer eligible for BCS using multivariable analysis. Furthermore, specific mammographic characteristics and tumor characteristics were independently associated with positive resection margins after BCS.

Nationwide registry study on trends in localization techniques and reoperation rates in non-palpable ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a transition from wire-guided localization (WGL) of non-palpable breast cancer to other localization techniques. Multiple prospective studies have sought to establish superior clinical outcomes for radioactive-seed localization (RSL), but consistent and congruent evidence is missing. METHODS: In this study, female patients with breast cancer operated with breast-conserving surgery after tumour localization of a non-palpable breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were included. The cohort was identified from the nationwide Netherlands Breast Cancer Audit conducted between 2013 and 2018. Trends in localization techniques were analysed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to assess the association between the localization technique and the probability of a reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 28 370 patients were included in the study cohort. The use of RSL increased from 15.7 to 61.1 per cent during the study years, while WGL decreased from 75.4 to 31.6 per cent. The localization technique used (RSL versus WGL) was not significantly associated with the odds of a reoperation, regardless of whether the lesion was DCIS (odds ratio 0.96 (95 per cent c.i. 0.89 to 1.03; P = 0.281)) or invasive breast cancer (OR 1.02 (95 per cent c.i. 0.96 to 1.10; P = 0.518)). CONCLUSION: RSL is rapidly replacing WGL as the preoperative localization technique in breast surgery. This large nationwide registry study found no association between the type of localization technique and the odds of having a reoperation, thus confirming the results of previous prospective cohort studies.

Delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall at biennial screening mammography: an observational follow-up study from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Delay in detection of breast cancer may worsen tumour characteristics, with progression of tumour size and a higher risk of metastatic lymph nodes. The purpose of this study was to investigate delayed breast cancer diagnosis after repeated recall for the same mammographic abnormality at screening. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed in two cohorts of women enrolled in a mammography screening programme in the Netherlands. All women aged 50-75 who underwent biennial screening mammography either between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2006 (cohort 1) or between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 (cohort 2) were included. RESULTS: The cohorts showed no difference in proportions of women with delayed breast cancer diagnosis of at least 2 years (2.2% versus 2.8%, P = 0.29). Most delays were caused by incorrect BI-RADS classifications after recall (74.2%). An increase in mean tumour size was seen when comparing sizes at initial false-negative recall and at diagnosis of breast cancer (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women with a long delay in breast cancer confirmation following repeated recall at screening mammography has not decreased during 20 years of screening. These delays lead to larger tumour size at detection and may negatively influence prognosis.

Local staging of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: mammography, ultrasound, or MRI?

BACKGROUND: Despite increasingly effective curative breast-conserving treatment (BCT) regimens for primary breast cancer, patients remain at risk for an ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). With increasing interest for repeat BCT in selected patients with IBTR, a reliable assessment of the size of IBTR is important for surgical planning. AIM: The primary aim of this study is to establish the performance in size estimation of XMG, US, and breast MRI in patients with IBTR. The secondary aim is to compare the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The sizes of IBTR on mammography (XMG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 159 patients were compared to the sizes at final histopathology. The accuracy of the size estimates was addressed using Pearson's coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes were the detection of multifocality and contralateral lesions between XMG and MRI. RESULTS: Both XMG and US significantly underestimated the tumor size by 3.5 and 4.8 mm, respectively, while MRI provided accurate tumor size estimation with a mean underestimation of 1.1 mm. The sensitivity for the detection of multifocality was significantly higher for MRI compared to XMG (25.5% vs. 5.5%). A contralateral malignancy was found in 4.4% of patients, and in 1.9%, it was detected by MRI only. CONCLUSION: The addition of breast MRI to XMG and US in the preoperative workup of IBTR allows for more accurate size estimation. MRI provides a higher sensitivity for the detection of multifocality compared to XMG.

Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists.

Background Screening technologists may function as readers in breast cancer screening programs. In the Netherlands, they attend quality assurance sessions. The frequency and characteristics of additional breast cancers detected through these sessions have not been reported. Purpose To determine the frequency and characteristics of cancers detected through quality assurance sessions. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort included 466 647 screening mammograms obtained between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2017. Mammograms were single read by certified screening technologists before being double read by two certified screening radiologists who were not blinded to the technologists' reading. The technologists and a coordinating screening radiologist regularly discussed mammograms that the technologists considered suspicious but that did not prompt recall at radiologist double reading. The coordinating radiologist decided whether secondary recall was indicated. During a 2-year follow-up, radiologic and pathologic outcome data for all recalled women were obtained. Characteristics of cancers detected at radiologist double reading and those detected through quality assurance sessions were compared by using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results A total of 14 142 women (mean age, 59 years ± 7.8 [standard deviation]; range, 49-75 years) were recalled (recall rate, 3.0% [14 142 of 466 647]): 14 057 after radiologist double reading and 85 by the coordinating radiologists after quality assurance sessions. This resulted in 3156 screening-detected cancers (6.8 cancers detected per 1000 screenings), of which 26 (0.8% of screening-detected cancers [26 of 3156]) were detected after secondary recall through quality assurance sessions. The latter comprised eight ductal carcinomas in situ (88% intermediate or high grade [seven of eight]) and 18 invasive cancers (14 T1a-c and four T2+ cancers, 89% Nottingham grade I or II [16 of 18]). No significant differences in tumor characteristics were found (P values ranging from .22 to .95). Sensitivity of quality assurance sessions for additional cancer detection was 52% (26 of 50; 95% confidence interval: 38%, 66%). Conclusion The role of quality assurance sessions in additional cancer detection is limited. Tumor characteristics did not differ significantly from those of cancers detected at radiologist double reading. © RSNA, 2020.