Universal genetic counseling in breast cancer patients significantly improves overall testing rates and improves completion rates in subpopulations.

PURPOSE: The NCCN guidelines recommend genetic testing in those patients at increased risk of breast cancer in order to identify candidates for increased frequency of screening or prophylactic mastectomy. However, genetic testing may now identify patients who may benefit from recently developed targeted breast cancer therapy. In order to more widely identify these patients, we implemented genetic counseling for all patients diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: In 2021, all patients evaluated within a Midwestern community hospital system diagnosed with breast cancer were offered genetic counseling. This group of patients was compared to a cohort of patients in 2021 who were offered genetic counseling based on NCCN guidelines. With Pearson's chi square, Fisher's Exact test, Mann-Whitney U, and multivariate regression as appropriate, individual demographic data and genetic testing completion between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 973 patients were reviewed. 439 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 and 534 in 2021. Demographics and stage at diagnosis (p = 0.194) were similar between years. Completion of genetic testing increased from 204 (46.5%) in 2019 to 338 (63.3%) in 2021 (p < 0.01) with the universal counseling protocol. Specifically, genetic testing completion increased significantly in older patients (p = 0.041) and patients receiving Medicare benefits (p = 0.005). The overall pathogenic variants found increased from 32 to 39 with the most common including BRCA2 (n = 11), CFTR (n = 9), CHEK2 (n = 8), BRCA1 (n = 6). CONCLUSION: Universal genetic counseling was related to a significant increase in genetic testing completion and an increase in pathogenic variants found among breast cancer patients, specifically in subpopulations which may have been previously excluded by traditional NCCN genetic testing screening guidelines.

Long-term survival outcomes of Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy after transitioning from open lobectomy.

BACKGROUND: Open lobectomy continues to be more commonly performed than video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy. We previously described the short-term safety of an approach for transitioning from open lobectomy to VATS. We now assess its long-term safety by evaluating survival results of the initial VATS cases after transition. METHODS: From a prospective database, survival of stage I non-small cell lung cancer was compared between the first 40 VATS lobectomy and the 40 open lobectomy performed just before the transitioning to VATS. All patients underwent staging by positron emission tomographic scan and mediastinoscopy. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Patient and intraoperative characteristics were not different between the two groups, except for operative time, which was longer for VATS (median 132 vs. 150 min, p = 0.023) and tumor size, which was smaller for VATS (median 2 vs. 2.5 cm, p = 0.002). There was no difference in morbidity and mortality. Median follow-up was 118 months for the open group and 81 months for the VATS group. The 5-year disease-free survival for stage IA (90 % open vs. 97 % VATS, p = 0.439) and IB (74 % open vs. 79 % VATS, p = 0.478) were not different. The 5-year overall survival for stage IA (91 % open vs. 97 % VATS, p = 0.152) and IB (55 % open vs. 67 % VATS, p = 0.198) were also not different. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from open to VATS lobectomy is safe with regards to both short-term morbidity and long-term survival. Surgeons currently performing open lobectomy should consider transitioning to the VATS procedure.

Comparing Breast Cancer Experiences and Quality of Life between Lesbian and Heterosexual Women.

BACKGROUND: While breast cancer among women in general has been well studied, little is known about breast cancer in sexual minority women (SMW). Aside from being at an increased risk for development of, and mortality from, breast cancer compared to their heterosexual counterparts, there is a growing collection of literature that suggests that SMW experience breast cancer differently to heterosexual women. METHODS: Qualitative study of both straight and lesbian women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Focus groups were conducted to assess straight and SMW experiences pertaining to perceived barriers, resources/support from partners as well as attitudes pertaining to breast reconstruction. RESULTS: A sample of 15 participants (10 straight and 5 lesbian women) were included in the present study. Focus group themes focused on support, wishes for support, satisfaction with inclusion of partner, fear, perceived discrimination, quality of life, body image, treatment delay, financial concern, frustration with the system, reconstruction, access to information, and attitudes towards cancer diagnosis. A majority of women in both groups chose to undergo breast reconstruction. CONCLUSION: In our study, SMW experienced their breast cancer treatment through a uniquely supportive and positive lens, often with higher relationship satisfaction and better self-image when compared to straight women.

Evaluation of 2014 margin guidelines on re-excision and recurrence rates after breast conserving surgery: A multi-institution retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: A 2014 consensus statement from the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology supported "no ink on tumor" as an adequate margin for breast conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates this statement in a multi-institution cohort. METHODS: A retrospective review of BCT cases at 3 comprehensive cancer centers was performed. Women age >18 receiving BCT for T1-2 breast cancer from 2008-2012 were included. Pre-2014, all sites considered 2 mm adequate. Estimated re-excision rates using the 2014 guidelines were calculated and factors predictive of re-excision were analyzed. RESULTS: 542 patients (545 lumpectomies) were eligible. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 32.8% of patients underwent re-excision compared to 14.1% after 2014 (p < 0.0001). Tumor size (p= 0.003), grade (p=0.015), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.021) were predictive of re-excision. Patients with additional intraoperative margins excised were less likely to require reoperation (p=0.002). Local recurrence was unaffected by re-excision after mean followup of 66 months. CONCLUSIONS: The 2014 margin guidelines markedly reduce re-excision rates. There is no difference in local recurrence for patients after re-excision for a close margin versus without Powered.

Lobectomy by Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery vs Muscle-Sparing Thoracotomy for Stage I Lung Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Propensity-matched studies have shown lobectomy by VATS to be superior to thoracotomy. However, these studies do not control for institution or surgeon expertise and do not compare VATS strictly with muscle-sparing thoracotomy (MST). STUDY DESIGN: From a single surgeon experienced in both VATS and MST, patients undergoing lobectomy for clinical stage I non-small cell cancer were evaluated. Video-assisted thoracic surgery was chosen if the patient requested this approach, otherwise MST was used. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2012, two hundred and ninety-eight patients were evaluated, 74 (25%) VATS and 224 (75%) MST. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics, chest tube days, and postoperative complications between the 2 surgical groups. Operative time was longer for VATS (median 130 minutes for VATS vs 90 minutes for MST; p<0.001). Hospital length of stay was longer for MST (median 4.5 days for VATS vs 5 days for MST; p=0.007). There was no difference in disease-free survival (5-year: 76% for VATS vs 78% for MST; p=0.446) and overall survival (5-year: 80% for VATS vs 79% for MST; p=0.840) for clinical stage I disease. Results were unchanged using propensity score matching of 60 VATS and 60 MST patients for postoperative complications, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the 2 matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our current comparison of VATS vs MST, from a single surgeon experienced with both approaches, found operative time (favoring MST) and hospital days (favoring VATS) to be the only difference between the 2 groups; and major outcomes, such as postoperative complications, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were not different. A multi-institution randomized trial should be considered before deeming any one approach to be superior.