Margin Assessment and Re-excision Rates for Patients Who Have Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has enabled more patients to be eligible for breast-conservation surgery (BCS). Achieving negative lumpectomy margins, however, is challenging due to changes in tissue composition and potentially scattered residual carcinoma in the tumor bed. Data regarding BCS after NAC have shown variable re-excision rates. MarginProbe (Dilon Technologies, Newport News, VA, USA) has been shown to identify positive resection margins intraoperatively and to reduce the number of re-excisions in primary BCS, but has not been studied in NAC+BCS cases. This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status, and re-excision rates for NAC+BCS patients with and without the use of MarginProbe. METHODS: The Institutional Breast Cancer Database was queried for patients who received NAC and had BCS from 2010 to 2019. The variables of interest were demographics, tumor characteristics, pathologic complete response (pCR), MarginProbe use, and re-excision rates. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 214 patients who had NAC, 61 (28.5 %) of whom had NAC+BCS. The median age of the patients was 53.5 years. A pCR was achieved for 19 of the patients (31.1 %). Of the remaining 42 patients, 9 (21 %) had close or positive margins that required re-excision. Re-excision was associated with a larger residual tumor size (p = 0.025) and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease before NAC (p = 0.041). MarginProbe use was associated with a lower re-excision rate for the patients who had NAC+BCS (6 % vs. 31 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: The patients with a larger residual tumor burden and ER-positive disease had a greater risk for inadequate margins at surgery. MarginProbe use was associated with a lower re-excision rate. Techniques to reduce the need for re-excision will support the use of BCS after NAC.

Surgical treatment of young women with breast cancer: Public vs private hospitals.

Disparities in breast cancer treatment have been documented in young and underserved women. This study aimed to determine whether surgical disparities exist among young breast cancer patients by comparing cancer treatment at a public safety-net hospital (BH) and private cancer center (PCC) within a single institution. This was a retrospective study of young women (<45) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (stage I-III) from 2011-2016. Patient information was abstracted from the breast cancer database at BH and PCC. Demographic variables, surgery type, method of presentation, and stage were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square tests and binary logistic regression. A total of 275 patients between ages 25-45 with invasive breast cancer (Stage I-III) were included in the study. There were 69 patients from BH and 206 patients from PCC. At PCC, the majority of patients were Caucasian (68%), followed by Asian (11%), Hispanic (10%), and African American (8.7%). At BH, patients were mostly Hispanic (47.8%), followed by Asian (27.5%), and African American (10.1%). At PCC, 82% had a college/graduate degree versus 18.6% of patients at BH (P < 0.001). All patients at PCC reported English as their primary language versus 30% of patients at BH (P < 0.001). Patients at PCC were more likely to present with lower stage cancer (P = 0.04), and less likely to present with a palpable mass (P = 0.04). Hospital type was not a predictor of receipt of mastectomy (P = 0.5), nor was race, primary language, or education level. Of patients who received a mastectomy, 87% at BH and 76% at PCC had immediate reconstruction. Surgical management of young women with breast cancer in a public hospital versus private hospital setting was equivalent, even after controlling for race, primary language, stage, and education level.

Cancer risk assessment using genetic panel testing: considerations for clinical application.

With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the development of high throughput technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, the use of multiplex genetic testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously to test for one or more conditions, is growing rapidly. Reflecting underlying heterogeneity where a broad range of genes confer risks for one or more cancers, the development of genetic cancer panels to assess these risks represents just one example of how multiplex testing is being applied clinically. There are a number of issues and challenges to consider when conducting genetic testing for cancer risk assessment, and these issues become exceedingly more complex when moving from the traditional single-gene approach to panel testing. Here, we address the practical considerations for clinical use of panel testing for breast, ovarian, and colon cancers, including the benefits, limitations and challenges, genetic counseling issues, and management guidelines.

A randomized prospective study of lumpectomy margin assessment with use of MarginProbe in patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The presence of tumor cells at the margins of breast lumpectomy specimens is associated with an increased risk of ipsilateral tumor recurrence. Twenty to 30 % of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery require second procedures to achieve negative margins. This study evaluated the adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device (Dune Medical Devices Ltd, Caesarea, Israel) in providing real-time intraoperative assessment of lumpectomy margins. METHODS: This multicenter randomized trial enrolled patients with nonpalpable breast malignancies. The study evaluated MarginProbe use in addition to standard intraoperative methods for margin assessment. After specimen removal and inspection, patients were randomized to device or control arms. In the device arm, MarginProbe was used to examine the main lumpectomy specimens and direct additional excision of positive margins. Intraoperative imaging was used in both arms; no intraoperative pathology assessment was permitted. RESULTS: In total, 596 patients were enrolled. False-negative rates were 24.8 and 66.1 % and false-positive rates were 53.6 and 16.6 % in the device and control arms, respectively. All positive margins on positive main specimens were resected in 62 % (101 of 163) of cases in the device arm, versus 22 % (33 of 147) in the control arm (p < 0.001). A total of 19.8 % (59 of 298) of patients in the device arm underwent a reexcision procedure compared with 25.8 % (77 of 298) in the control arm (6 % absolute, 23 % relative reduction). The difference in tissue volume removed was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of the MarginProbe device during breast-conserving surgery improved surgeons' ability to identify and resect positive lumpectomy margins in the absence of intraoperative pathology assessment, reducing the number of patients requiring reexcision. MarginProbe may aid performance of breast-conserving surgery by reducing the burden of reexcision procedures for patients and the health care system.

Current comprehensive assessment and management of women at increased risk for breast cancer.

The potential for reducing the risk of breast cancer through selective estrogen receptor modulators, aromatase inhibitors, and surgery has generated interest in the use of quantitative models of risk assessment. With the addition of ductal lavage cytology to traditional epidemiologic risk factors, a discovery of cellular atypia can result in refinement of assigned risk values, while simultaneously optimizing patient selection for selective estrogen receptor modulators utilization. In view of increasing complexity in this arena, a Risk Assessment Working Group was formed to outline management strategies for the patient at an elevated risk for the development of breast cancer. No longer a statistical exercise, quantitative risk assessment is part of basic breast care and comprehensive management includes a discussion of the following: ductal lavage for improved risk stratification, multiple options for risk reduction, and high risk surveillance strategies that might incorporate investigational imaging protocols.

Use of the Internet by women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recently, many cancer patients have been using the Internet for information with which to make informed choices. We are not aware of any studies that investigate this Internet use among breast cancer patients or women. OBJECTIVE: We investigate the prevalence and predictors of Internet use for medical information among women with breast cancer. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design and approached 251 women with breast cancer being treated at a university-based hospital. We successfully interviewed 188 (74.9%), through mailed self-report questionnaires. Medical information was obtained from the hospital tumor registry. We used t tests and chi-square tests to assess differences in Internet use for breast health issues and binary logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for predictors of Internet use for breast health issues. RESULTS: In our sample, 41.5% of patients used the Internet for medical information. Internet users differed from nonusers on income level, educational level, and by race/ethnicity. After controlling for the other predictors, Internet users had a higher income (OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.09-8.85) and tended to be more educated (OR = 2.59; 95% CI = 0.87-7.74) than nonusers. There was also a suggestion that those of nonwhite ethnicity were less likely to use the Internet (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.14-1.11). Increasing age, length of time since diagnosis, and breast cancer stage had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients used the Internet as a source of information. Patients with higher income or education, and patients of white race/ethnicity are more likely to use the Internet for breast health issues.