Exploring the impact of exercise and mind-body prehabilitation interventions on physical and psychological outcomes in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the impact of exercise and mind-body prehabilitation interventions on changes in quality of life and cancer treatment-related symptoms in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: The following describes a secondary analysis of a randomized window of opportunity trial (The Pre-Operative Health and Body Study). Forty-nine women were randomized to participate in either an exercise prehabilitation intervention or a mind-body prehabilitation intervention from the time of enrollment to surgery. Participants (N = 47) completed measures of quality of life, anxiety, depression, and stress at the time of enrollment (T1), post-intervention/surgery (T2), and one-month post-surgery (T3). Changes in outcome measures between groups were compared over time using longitudinal models. RESULTS: Mind-body group participants experienced significant improvements in cognitive functioning in comparison to exercise group participants between T1 and T3 (difference in average change: -9.61, p = 0.04, d = 0.31), otherwise, there were no significant differences between groups. Within group comparisons demonstrated that both groups experienced improvements in anxiety (exercise: average change = -1.18, p = 0.03, d = 0.34; mind-body: average change = -1.69, p = 0.006, d = 0.43) and stress (exercise: average change = -2.33, p = 0.04, d = 0.30; mind-body: average change = -2.59, p = 0.05, d = 0.29), while mind-body group participants experienced improvements in insomnia (average change = -10.03, p = 0.04, d = 0.30) and cognitive functioning (average change = 13.16, p = 0.0003, d = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Both prehabilitation interventions impacted cancer treatment-related symptoms. Further work in larger groups of patients is needed to evaluate the efficacy of prehabilitation interventions on quality of life in women with breast cancer. Pre-operative exercise and mind-body interventions may impact physical and/or psychological effects of cancer diagnosis and treatment in women with breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01516190. Registered January 24, 2012.

Clinical Impact of Second Opinion Radiology Consultation for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and clinical significance of discrepancy in subspecialty interpretation of outside breast imaging examinations for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to a tertiary cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study included patients presenting from July 2016 to March 2017 to a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center for second opinion after breast cancer diagnosis. Outside and second opinion radiology reports of 252 randomly selected patients were compared by two subspecialty breast radiologists to consensus. A peer review score was assigned, modeled after ACR's RADPEERTM peer review metric: 1-agree; 2-minor discrepancy (unlikely clinically significant); 3-moderate discrepancy (may be clinically significant); 4-major discrepancy (likely clinically significant). Among cases with clinically significant discrepancies, rates of clinical management change (management alterations including change in follow-up, neoadjuvant therapy use, and surgical management as a direct result of image review), and detection of additional malignancy were assessed through electronic medical record review. RESULTS: A significant difference in interpretation (scores = 3 or 4) was seen in 41 of 252 cases (16%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7%-20.8%). The difference led to additional workup in 38 of 252 cases (15%, 95% CI 10.6%-19.5%) and change in clinical management in 18 of 252 cases (7.1%, 95% CI 4.0%-10.2%), including 15 of 252 with change in surgical management (6.0%, 95% CI, 3.0%-8.9%). An additional malignancy or larger area of disease was identified in 11 of 252 cases (4.4%, 95% CI, 1.8%-6.9%). CONCLUSION: Discrepancy between outside and second-opinion breast imaging subspecialists frequently results in additional workup for breast cancer patients, changes in treatment plan, and identification of new malignancies.

Impact of Genomic Assay Testing and Clinical Factors on Chemotherapy Use After Implementation of Standardized Testing Criteria.

BACKGROUND: For clinically appropriate early-stage breast cancer patients, reflex criteria for Oncotype DX ordering ("the intervention") were implemented at our comprehensive cancer center, which reduced time-to-adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Our objective was to evaluate Oncotype DX ordering practices and chemotherapy use before and after implementation of the intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined medical records for 498 patients who had definitive breast cancer surgery at our center. The post-intervention cohort consisted of 232 consecutive patients who had Oncotype DX testing after reflex criteria implementation. This group was compared to a retrospective cohort of 266 patients who were diagnosed and treated prior to reflex criteria implementation, including patients who did and did not have Oncotype DX ordered. Factors associated with Oncotype DX ordering pre- and post-intervention were examined. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with chemotherapy receipt among patients with Oncotype DX testing. RESULTS: The distribution of Oncotype DX scores, the proportion of those having Oncotype DX testing (28.9% vs. 34.1%) and those receiving chemotherapy (14.3% vs. 19.4%), did not significantly change between pre- and post-intervention groups. Age ≤65 years, stage II, grade 2, 1-3+ nodes, and tumor size >2 cm were associated with higher odds of Oncotype DX testing. Among patients having Oncotype DX testing, node status and Oncotype DX scores were significantly associated with chemotherapy receipt. CONCLUSION: Our criteria for reflex Oncotype DX ordering appropriately targeted patients for whom Oncotype DX would typically be ordered by providers. No significant change in the rate of Oncotype DX ordering or chemotherapy use was observed after reflex testing implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study demonstrates that implementing multidisciplinary consensus reflex criteria for Oncotype DX ordering maintains a stable Oncotype DX ordering rate and chemotherapy rate, mirroring what was observed in a specific clinical practice, while decreasing treatment delays due to additional testing. These reflex criteria appropriately capture patients who would likely have had Oncotype DX ordered by their providers and for whom the test results are predicted to influence management. This intervention serves as a potential model for other large integrated, multidisciplinary oncology centers to institute processes targeting patient populations most likely to benefit from genomic assay testing, while mitigating treatment delays.

Factors Associated With Delays in Chemotherapy Initiation Among Patients With Breast Cancer at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines endorse time-dependent quality metrics for breast cancer care. We examined factors associated with delays in chemotherapy initiation at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 523 patients who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy between January 2011 and December 2013 at our center. We defined 28 days from last definitive surgery (LDS) to chemotherapy as the target time frame, and an unacceptable delay in chemotherapy initiation (UCD) as greater than 42 days from LDS. Multivariate regression models were used to identify factors associated with UCD and the impact of Oncotype DX testing in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. RESULTS: Median days between LDS and chemotherapy initiation was 34 (interquartile range, 15), with 30% of patients starting within 28 days of LDS and 26.9% having UCD. Tumor characteristics such as subtype and stage affected UCD; patients with HR-positive or HER2-positive tumors were more likely to be delayed compared with those with triple-negative breast cancer. Patients with stage I disease, those undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, and those whose pathology sign-out was greater than 10 days postoperatively were more likely to be delayed. A higher proportion of UCD was found in HR-positive patients (31%) for whom Oncotype DX testing was ordered compared with those in whom it was not ordered (20%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into subpopulations that may be at risk to experience delays in chemotherapy initiation, directing interventions to improve the timeliness of care.

Variation in Additional Breast Imaging Orders and Impact on Surgical Wait Times at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: In the multidisciplinary care model, breast imagers frequently provide second-opinion reviews of imaging studies performed at outside institutions. However, the need for additional imaging and timeliness of obtaining these studies has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the frequency of additional imaging orders by breast surgeons and to evaluate the impact of this supplementary imaging on timeliness of surgery. METHODS: We identified 2489 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent first definitive surgery (FDS) at our comprehensive cancer center between 2011 and 2013. The number of breast-specific imaging studies performed for each patient between initial consultation and FDS was obtained. χ (2) tests were used to quantify the proportion of patients undergoing additional imaging by surgeon. Interval time between initial consultation and additional imaging and/or biopsy was calculated. The delay of additional imaging on time to FDS was assessed by t test. RESULTS: Of 2489 patients, 615 (24.7 %) had at least one additional breast-specific imaging study performed between initial consultation and FDS, with 222 patients undergoing additional biopsies (8.9 %). The proportion of patients receiving imaging tests by breast surgeon ranged from 15 to 39 % (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving additional imaging had statistically longer wait times to FDS for BCT (21.4-28.5 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in the utilization of additional breast-specific imaging and in the timeliness of obtaining these tests among breast surgeons. Further research is warranted to assess the sources and impact of this variation on patient care, cost, and outcomes.

The Influence of Radiology Image Consultation in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients referred to comprehensive cancer centers arrive with clinical data requiring review. Radiology consultation for second opinions often generates additional imaging requests; however, the impact of this service on breast cancer management remains unclear. We sought to identify the incidence of additional imaging requests and the effect additional imaging has on patients' ultimate surgical management. METHODS: Between November 2013 and March 2014, 153 consecutive patients with breast cancer received second opinion imaging reviews and definitive surgery at our cancer center. We identified the number of additional imaging requests, the number of fulfilled requests, the modality of additional imaging completed, the number of biopsies performed, and the number of patients whose management was altered due to additional imaging results. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 98.9% were female; 23.5% (36) had in situ carcinoma (35 DCIS/1 LCIS), and 76.5% (117) had invasive carcinoma. Additional imaging was suggested for 47.7% (73/153) of patients. After multidisciplinary consultation, 65.8% (48/73) of patients underwent additional imaging. Imaging review resulted in biopsy in 43.7% (21/48) of patients and ultimately altered preliminary treatment plans in 37.5% (18/48) of patients (Fig. 1). Changes in management included: conversion to mastectomy or breast conservation, neoadjuvant therapy, additional wire placement, and need for contralateral breast surgery. Fig. 1 Impact of second-opinion imaging reviews on the management of breast cancer patients CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of second opinion imaging consultation demonstrates the significant value that this service has on breast cancer management. Overall, 11.7% (18/153) of patients who underwent breast surgery had management changes as a consequence of radiologic imaging review.

Surgical patterns of care in patients with invasive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy and breast magnetic resonance imaging: results of a secondary analysis of TBCRC 017.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) downstages advanced primary tumors, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being the most sensitive imaging predictor of response. However, the impact of MRI evaluation on surgical treatment decisions in the neoadjuvant setting has not been well described. We report surgical patterns of care across 8 National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer centers in women receiving both NCT and MRI to evaluate the impact of MRI findings on surgical planning. METHODS: Seven hundred seventy women from 8 institutions received NCT with MRI obtained both before and after systemic treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses of imaging, patient-, and tumor-related covariates associated with choice of breast surgery were conducted. RESULTS: MRI and surgical data were available on 759 of 770 patients. A total of 345 of 759 (45 %) patients received breast-conserving surgery and 414 of 759 (55 %) received mastectomy. Mastectomy occurred more commonly in patients with incomplete MRI response versus complete (58 vs. 43 %) (p = 0.0003). On multivariate analysis, positive estrogen receptor status (p = 0.02), incomplete MRI response (p = 0.0003), higher baseline T classification (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0006), and institution (p = 0.003) were independent predictors of mastectomy. A statistically significant trend toward increasing use of mastectomy with increasing T stage at presentation (p < 0.0001) was observed in patients with incomplete response by MRI only. Among women with complete response on MRI, 43 % underwent mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Within a multi-institutional cohort of women undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer, MRI findings were not clearly associated with extent of surgery. This study shows that receptor status, T stage at diagnosis, young age, and treating institution are more significant determinants of surgical treatment choice than MRI response data.

Understanding process-of-care delays in surgical treatment of breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

Few studies have examined care processes within providers' and institutions' control that expedite or delay care. The authors investigated the timeliness of breast cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center, focusing on factors influencing the time from initial consultation to first definitive surgery (FDS). The care of 1,461 women with breast cancer who underwent surgery at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center from 2011 to 2013 was studied. The interval between consultation and FDS was calculated to identify variation in timeliness of care based on procedure, provider, and patients' sociodemographic characteristics. Targets of 14 days for lumpectomy and mastectomy and 28 days from mastectomy with immediate reconstruction were set and used to define delay. Mean days between consultation and FDS was 21.6 (range 1-175, sd 15.8) for lumpectomy, 36.7 (5-230, 29.1) for mastectomy, and 37.5 (7-111, 16) for mastectomy with reconstruction. Patients under 40 were less likely to be delayed (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.33-0.94, p = 0.03). Patients undergoing mastectomy alone (OR = 2.64, 95 % CI = 1.80-3.89, p < 0.0001) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR = 1.34 95 % CI = 1.00-1.79, p = 0.05) were more likely to be delayed when compared to lumpectomy. Substantial variation in surgical timeliness was identified. This study provides insight into targets for improvement including better coordination with plastic surgery and streamlining pre-operative testing. Cancer centers may consider investing in efforts to measure and improve the timeliness of cancer care.

A phase II study of preoperative capecitabine in women with operable hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

Conventional preoperative chemotherapy regimens have only limited efficacy in hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer and new approaches are needed. We hypothesized that capecitabine, which is effective in metastatic breast cancer, may be an active preoperative treatment for HR+ breast cancer. Women with HR+, HER2-negative operable breast cancer received capecitabine, 2000 mg/m(2) daily in divided doses for 14 days, followed by a 7-day rest period. Treatment was repeated every 21 days for a total of four cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was to determine the rate of pathological complete response (pCR). Because of slow accrual, the study was closed after 24 patients were enrolled. Three patients had a complete clinical response, and eight patients had a partial clinical response, for an overall clinical response rate of 45.8%. There were no cases of pCR. Of the 22 patients who had pathological response assessment by the Miller-Payne grading system, there were six grade 3 responses, and no grade 4 or 5 responses. Toxicity was manageable: the only grade 3 toxicities observed were one case each of diarrhea, palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypokalemia, and mucositis. There was no association between baseline levels, or change in level from baseline to cycle 1, or from baseline to time of surgery, of thymidine phosphorylase (TYMP), thymidylate synthase (TYMS), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD), or Ki67 and pathological, clinical, or radiographic response. Preoperative capecitabine is a well-tolerated regimen, but appears not lead to pCR when used as monotherapy in HR+ breast cancer.

Surgery of the primary tumor does not improve survival in stage IV breast cancer.

We sought to evaluate the survival of patients who received breast surgery prior to any other breast cancer therapy following a metastatic diagnosis. Standard treatment for stage IV breast cancer is systemic therapy without resection of the primary tumor. Registry-based studies suggest that resection of the primary tumor may improve survival in stage IV cancer. We performed a retrospective analysis using data from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Breast Cancer Outcomes Database. Patients were eligible if they had a metastatic breast cancer diagnosis at presentation with disease at a distant site and either received surgery prior to any systemic therapy or received systemic therapy only. Eligible patients who did not receive surgery were matched to those who received surgery based on age at diagnosis, ER, HER2, and number of metastatic sites. To determine whether estimates from the matched analysis were consistent with estimates that could be obtained without matching univariate and multivariable analyses of the unmatched sample were also conducted. There were 1,048 patients in the NCCN database diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer from 1997 to 2007. 609 metastatic breast cancer patients were identified as eligible for the study. Among the 551 patients who had data available for matching, 236 patients who did not receive surgery were matched to 54 patients who received surgery. Survival was similar between the groups with a median of 3.4 years in the nonsurgery group and 3.5 years in the surgery group. The groups were similar after adjusting for the presence of lung metastases and use of trastuzumab therapy (HR=0.94, CI 0.83-1.08, P=0.38). When matching for the variables associated with a survival benefit in previous studies, surgery was not shown to improve survival in the stage IV setting for this subset.