Intra-operative assessment of excised breast tumour margins using ClearEdge imaging device.

INTRODUCTION: Breast conserving surgery (BCS) aims to remove a breast cancer completely and obtain clear margins. Complete excision is essential to reduce the risk of local recurrence. The ClearEdge™ (CE) imaging device examines margins of excised breast tissue intra-operatively. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of the device in detecting margin involvement in patients having BCS. METHODS: In Phase-1 58 patients underwent BCS and had 334 margins assessed by the device. In Phase-2 the device was used in 63 patients having BCS and 335 margins were assessed. Patients with margins considered close or involved by the CE device were re-excised. RESULTS: The margin assessment accuracies in Phase-1 and Phase-2 compared to permanent section pathology were very similar: sensitivity (84.3% and 87.3%), specificity (81.9% and 75.6%), positive predictive value (67.2% and 63.6%), and negative predictive value (92.2% and 92.4%). The false positive rate (18.1% and 24.4%) and false negative rate (15.7% and 12.7%) were low in both phases. In Phase-2 re-excision rate was 37%, but in the 54 where the CE device was used appropriately the re-excision rate was 17%. Had all surgeons interpreted all images appropriately and re-excised margins detected as abnormal by the device in Phase-2 then the re-excision rate would have been 7%. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the CE device has potential to reduce re-excision after BCS and further randomized studies of its value are warranted.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surveillance mammography regimens after the treatment for primary breast cancer: systematic reviews registry database analyses and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Following primary breast cancer treatment, the early detection of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) or ipsilateral secondary cancer in the treated breast and detection of new primary cancers in the contralateral breast is beneficial for survival. Surveillance mammography is used to detect these cancers, but the optimal frequency of surveillance and the length of follow-up are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To identify feasible management strategies for surveillance and follow-up of women after treatment for primary breast cancer in a UK setting, and to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of differing regimens. METHODS: A survey of UK breast surgeons and radiologists to identify current surveillance mammography regimens and inform feasible alternatives; two discrete systematic reviews of evidence published from 1990 to mid 2009 to determine (i) the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of differing surveillance mammography regimens for patient health outcomes and (ii) the test performance of surveillance mammography in the detection of IBTR and metachronous contralateral breast cancer (MCBC); statistical analysis of individual patient data (West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit Breast Cancer Registry and Edinburgh data sets); and economic modelling using the systematic reviews results, existing data sets, and focused searches for specific data analysis to determine the effectiveness and cost-utility of differing surveillance regimens. RESULTS: The majority of survey respondents initiate surveillance mammography 12 months after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) (87%) or mastectomy (79%). Annual surveillance mammography was most commonly reported for women after BCS or after mastectomy (72% and 53%, respectively). Most (74%) discharge women from surveillance mammography, most frequently 10 years after surgery. The majority (82%) discharge from clinical follow-up, most frequently at 5 years. Combining initiation, frequency and duration of surveillance mammography resulted in 54 differing surveillance regimens for women after BCS and 56 for women following mastectomy. The eight studies included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review suggest surveillance mammography offers a survival benefit compared with a surveillance regimen that does not include surveillance mammography. Nine studies were included in the test performance systematic review. For routine IBTR detection, surveillance mammography sensitivity ranged from 64% to 67% and specificity ranged from 85% to 97%. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), sensitivity ranged from 86% to 100% and specificity was 93%. For non-routine IBTR detection, sensitivity and specificity for surveillance mammography ranged from 50% to 83% and from 57% to 75%, respectively, and for MRI from 93% to 100% and from 88% to 96%, respectively. For routine MCBC detection, one study reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% for both surveillance mammography and MRI, although this was a highly select population. Data set analysis showed that IBTR has an adverse effect on survival. Furthermore, women experiencing a second tumour measuring >20 mm in diameter were at a significantly greater risk of death than those with no recurrence or those whose tumour was <10 mm in diameter. In the base-case analysis, the strategy with the highest net benefit, and most likely to be considered cost-effective, was surveillance mammography alone, provided every 12 months at a societal willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year of either £20,000 or £30,000. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for surveillance mammography alone every 12 months compared with no surveillance was £4727. LIMITATIONS: Few studies met the review inclusion criteria and none of the studies was a randomised controlled trial. The limited and variable nature of the data available precluded any quantitative analysis. There was no useable evidence contained in the Breast Cancer Registry database to assess the effectiveness of surveillance mammography directly. The results of the economic model should be considered exploratory and interpreted with caution given the paucity of data available to inform the economic model. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance is likely to improve survival and patients should gain maximum benefit through optimal use of resources, with those women with a greater likelihood of developing IBTR or MCBC being offered more comprehensive and more frequent surveillance. Further evidence is required to make a robust and informed judgement on the effectiveness of surveillance mammography and follow-up. The utility of national data sets could be improved and there is a need for high-quality, direct head-to-head studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of tests used in the surveillance population. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Proteomic assessment of the acute phase of dystrophin deficiency in mdx mice.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is caused by the absence of a functional dystrophin protein and is modeled by the mdx mouse. The mdx mouse suffers an early necrotic bout in the hind limb muscles lasting from approximately 4 to 7 weeks. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the extent to which dystrophin deficiency changed the proteome very early in the disease process. In order to accomplish this, proteins from gastrocnemius from 6-week-old C57 (n = 6) and mdx (n = 6) mice were labeled with fluorescent dye and subjected to two-dimensional differential in-gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE). Resulting differentially expressed spots were excised and protein identity determined via MALDI-TOF followed by database searching using MASCOT. Proteins of the immediate energy system and glycolysis were generally down-regulated in mdx mice compared to C57 mice. Conversely, expression of proteins involved in the Kreb's cycle and electron transport chain were increased in dystrophin-deficient muscle compared to control. Expression of cytoskeletal components, including tubulins, vimentin, and collagen, were increased in mdx mice compared to C57 mice. Importantly, these changes are occurring at only 6 weeks of age and are caused by acute dystrophin deficiency rather than more chronic injury. These data may provide insight regarding early pathologic changes occurring in dystrophin-deficient skeletal muscle.

TELEMAM: a cluster randomised trial to assess the use of telemedicine in multi-disciplinary breast cancer decision making.

AIM: The TELEMAM trial aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and costs of telemedicine in conducting breast cancer multi-disciplinary meetings (MDTs). METHODS: Over 12 months 473 MDT patient discussions in two district general hospitals (DGHs) were cluster randomised (2:1) to the intervention of telemedicine linkage to breast specialists in a cancer centre or to the control group of 'in-person' meetings. Primary endpoints were clinical effectiveness and costs. Economic analysis was based on a cost-minimisation approach. RESULTS: Levels of agreement of MDT members on a scale from 1 to 5 were high and similar in both the telemedicine and standard meetings for decision sharing (4.04 versus 4.17), consensus (4.06 versus 4.20) and confidence in the decision (4.16 versus 4.07). The threshold at which the telemedicine meetings became cheaper than standard MDTs was approximately 40 meetings per year. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine delivered breast cancer multi-disciplinary meetings have similar clinical effectiveness to standard 'in-person' meetings.

Making a difference to socioeconomic determinants of health in Australia: a research and development strategy.

Disparities in health across the socioeconomic spectrum are now recognised worldwide and demand policy action. Pathways from social disadvantage to health outcomes are poorly understood, and reducing social disadvantage poses crosscutting political, moral and methodological issues. The Health Inequalities Research Collaboration, an initiative of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, is establishing a research and development process to support departmental efforts to reduce health inequalities. The collaboration is building research networks in child development, community resources and primary healthcare. Policy action needs to extend beyond the health portfolio and the role of government. Broad strategies are required, as is research to fearlessly evaluate the health effects of government policy, economic activity and cultural change. The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research is a model for national research of the kind needed in Australia.

Assessment of the acceptability of conservative management of fibroadenoma of the breast.

A prospective study was performed in 202 patients with 219 fibroadenomas, diagnosed by a combination of clinical examination, ultrasonography and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Patients were given the choice of excision or conservative management with regular monitoring by ultrasonography. Sixteen patients with 18 fibroadenomas opted for excision and all 18 lesions were histologically confirmed as fibroadenomas. A further 152 patients with 163 fibroadenomas were observed for a minimum period of 2 years; 13 fibroadenomas increased significantly in size (all 13 were excised and confirmed histologically as fibroadenomas), 19 decreased significantly in size, 42 resolved and the remaining 89 showed no change in size. Conservative management of fibroadenomas in patients under the age of 40 is safe and acceptable to the majority of women.

Clinical assessment of tumour size in primary breast carcinoma.

In a consecutive series of 100 operable breast carcinomas clinical and mammographic assessment of tumour size each resulted in only 75% being placed in the correct T category when compared to the actual tumour size. In a further 50 breast carcinomas it was shown that an accurate assessment of actual tumour size could be obtained by subtracting the thickness of the skin, fat and subcutaneous tissue in the corresponding area in the contralateral breast from the clinical measurement obtained using calipers (adjusted clinical size). The T category using this method was correct in 49 out of the 50, significantly better than clinical measurement or mammographic assessment of tumour size (p less than 0.003 McNemar's Test). Analysis of the regression lines obtained comparing clinical measurement, mammographic assessment and adjusted clinical size with actual tumour size showed that: clinical measurement overestimated actual tumour size by 0.5 to 1 cm; mammographic assessment overestimated small tumour and underestimated larger ones, whereas the adjusted clinical size never differed by more than a fraction of a centimeter from the actual size. This new method of assessment of tumour size allows accurate pre-operative selection of patients into appropriate treatment options.