Shaves off the Cavity or Specimen in Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Re-excision for positive margins (margins where tumor is positive) after breast conserving surgery (BCS) is common and burdensome for breast cancer patients. Routine shave margins can reduce positive margins and re-excision rates. Cavity shaving margin (CSM) removes margins from the lumpectomy cavity edges, whereas specimen shave margin (SSM) requires ex vivo removal of margins from the resected specimen. METHODS: We assessed breast cancer patients undergoing BCS who received CSM or SSM procedures from 2017 to 2019. CSM and SSM techniques were compared by analyzing positive rates of primary and final shaved margins, re-excision rates, and tissue volumes removed. RESULTS: Of 116 patients included in this study, 57 underwent CSM and 59 underwent SSM. Primary margins were positive or close in 19 CSM patients and 21 SSM patients (33% versus 36%; P = 0.798). Seventeen CSM patients had a tumor in shaved margin specimens, compared to four patients for SSM (30% versus 7%; P < 0.001); however, final shave margins were similar (5% versus 5%; P = 0.983). Volumes of shave specimens were higher with SSM (40.7 versus 13.4 cm3; P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in the total volume removed (146.8 versus 134.4 cm3; P = 0.540). For tumors 2 cm or larger, the total volume removed (140 versus 206 cm3; P = 0.432) and rates of final margin positivity (7.5% versus 0%; P = 0.684) were similar for both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: CSM and SSM are effective techniques for achieving low re-excision rates. Our findings suggest that surgeons performing either CSM or SSM may maintain operative preferences and achieve similar results.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Radial Scars on Core Needle Biopsy in Patients with or without Breast Cancer: Upgrade Rate and Implications on Management.

BACKGROUND: Radial scars/radial sclerosing lesions (RS) are benign breast lesions identified on core needle biopsy (CNB) which can upgrade to malignancy at excision. There is limited data on RS detection and upgrade rates with more sensitive imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and none during their detection for breast cancer workup and its implication on patient treatment decisions. METHODS: A retrospective institutional study of RS diagnosed on CNB between January 2008 and December 2017 was conducted. Clinicopathologic and radiologic features of RS, patient treatment decisions, upgrade rates and long-term follow-up were examined. RESULTS: We identified 133 patients with RS on CNB, of whom 106 opted for surgery for an upgrade rate to malignancy of 1.9%, 2 patients. Radial scar was diagnosed on mammogram in 60%, MRI in 25% and ultrasound in 15% of patients. In this cohort, 32 patients had their RS detected during breast cancer workup (coexistent group) and they were more likely to have their radial scar detected by MRI (60% vs. 14%, P < .001) and undergo more extensive surgery (94% vs. 75%, P = .02). Among the 27 patients electing observation of their RS, only one (3.7%) developed breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show an extremely low upgrade rate to malignancy of RS, regardless if there is coexisting breast cancer elsewhere. Despite this, RS still prompted more extensive surgical excisions. The findings do not support excision of RS even among breast cancer patients when identified at a separate site from their cancer.

Presenting for Duty: Lessons From A Specialty Surgery Division at the Pandemic Epicenter.

MINI-ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had catastrophic repercussions across the world and here in the United States. The healthcare system in New York City, the epicenter, has faced significant disruptions due to the sheer volume of cases and critical care needs of severely ill patients. For surgical specialty services, the postponement of all elective surgeries, redeployment of faculty and staff, and cancellation of outpatient clinics became a rapid reality. These circumstances required a nimble restructuring of services and communications to facilitate continued support of academic and clinical missions. Throughout the course of the pandemic, significant adjustments were made in regards to duties, patient services, and communication. The frameworks and techniques utilized are described along with the relevant outcomes. Immediate restructuring of tumor boards, a focused multidisciplinary approach to management that incorporated the barriers presented by the pandemic, optimization of telehealth services, inclusive communication, and a service-oriented approach to redeployment were critical to sustaining the Division of Breast, Melanoma, and Soft Tissue surgery.

Coexisting DCIS and phyllodes breast tumors in Young Chinese women: Case series.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cystosarcoma phyllodes tumors are rare and can be benign or malignant. All sub-divisions of phyllodes tumor-benign, borderline and malignant, can harbor carcinomas, although the incidence is extremely rare. METHODS: We present two nonconsecutive cases of coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and phyllodes breast tumors in young patients. METHODS & CASE PRESENTATION: Retrospective review of two patient's medical record was performed. CASE 1: 30-year-old female underwent excisional biopsy for 3.48 cm mass found on ultrasound. Pathology revealed malignant phyllodes tumor with positive margin. On re-excision, patient was found to have 1.5 cm area of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with positive margin. Patient then underwent re-reexicision of DCIS with negative margin. Patient underwent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for three years without evidence of disease. CASE 2: 30-year-old female presented with 1.3 cm lesion found on ultrasound which core needle biopsy revealed a fibroepithelial tumor. Patient subsequently underwent excision biopsy which found 1.5 cm benign phyllodes tumor and 3.5 mm DCIS within the phyllodes tumor with negative margins. Patient declined additional chemotherapy or hormonal therapy and is currently considering mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Phyllodes tumors are rare and ones with a coexisting carcinoma are even less frequently encountered. The treatment plan can change upon diagnosis of the carcinoma via the pathology. Treatment should be guided by the type and stage of carcinoma detected which may include additional surgical resection and lymph node sampling.

A case report of parotid mammary analogue secretory carcinoma and reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Mammary analog secretory carcinoma (MASC) is a new diagnosis of head and neck tumors first reported in 2010. It was often misdiagnosed as salivary acinic cell carcinoma (AciCC). We present a patient with an asymptomatic parotid tumor that underwent deep lobe parotidectomy and postoperative radiation therapy. The final pathology showed MASC. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old male presented with an asymptomatic enlarging right parotid mass. A CT neck with IV contrast showed a 1.2 cm heterogeneously enhancing mass in the center of the right parotid gland without extraparotid extension. An FNA showed an epithelial neoplasm with papillary features. The patient underwent a right deep lobe parotidectomy with facial nerve dissection. The final pathology confirmed the diagnosis of MASC. He subsequently completed a 6-week course of radiation therapy and remained asymptomatic at his 30-month follow up. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Although MASC is considered a low-grade tumor in most cases, recurrence and disseminated disease are not uncommon. No standard treatment protocol has been established. This report aims to enhance the awareness of this diagnosis and provide a review of current treatments for head and neck oncology care providers.

Sebaceous lymphadenoma requiring superficial parotidectomy.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a painless, progressively enlarging right neck mass of 2 years' duration. CT with contrast showed a 5.0 cm confluence of nodes just inferior to the right parotid gland. Fine-needle aspiration showed a lymphoproliferative disorder. Incisional biopsy showed sebaceous lymphadenoma. She subsequently underwent superficial right parotidectomy with neck dissection of level II-V (performed for enlarged lymph nodes causing significant pain). Facial nerve was preserved. She remained free of disease nearly 1 year postoperatively.

Restenosis rates following vertebral artery origin stenting: does stent type make a difference?

OBJECTIVES: To compare our experience with sirolimus and paclitaxel-eluting stents (drug-eluting stents [DES]) and non-drug-eluting stents (NDES) for treatment of vertebral artery (VA) origin stenosis and review the literature. METHODS: A retrospective review of our prospectively collected database was performed. Clinical and radiologic follow up was obtained by reviewing office records and radiology. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, stenosis severity, contralateral VA stenosis and/or carotid stenosis, type of stent used, angioplasty before or after stenting, post-treatment residual stenosis, clinical and radiological follow up and retreatment. Patients with symptomatic > 60% stenosis or asymptomatic > 70% stenosis and/or a hypoplastic or occluded contralateral VA or significant carotid occlusion were chosen for revascularization. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients treated with NDES and 15 treated with DES for management of VA origin stenosis were identified. The technical success rate of the procedure was 100%. There were no procedural complications. There were 7 asymptomatic patients (NDES Group-4, DES Group-3). In the NDES Group, 9 patients had pre-stent angioplasty; 2 had post-stent angioplasty. In the DES group, 4 patients had post-stent angioplasty. Symptoms resolved in 30/31 (96.8%) patients treated with NDES and 11/12 (91.7%) treated with DES. Thirty-six patients had radiologic follow up (median 21.3 months); in-stent restenosis was documented in 11 patients (NDES 9/24 [38%], DES 2/12 [17%]). Among patients receiving NDES, re-stenotic lesions required angioplasty in 7 patients. No patients in the DES group required angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: DES for treatment of VA origin stenosis may decrease the incidence of restenosis when compared to NDES. Validation in prospective, randomized, multicenter trials is necessary.