Should patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and one or two positive sentinel nodes undergo axillary dissection to determine candidacy for adjuvant abemaciclib?

BACKGROUND: The monarchE trial demonstrated improved outcomes with the use of adjuvant abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer defined as ≥4 positive lymph nodes (+LNs) or one to three +LNs with one or more additional high-risk features (HRFs). The proportion of patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (+SLNs) without HRFs who had ≥4 +LNs at the time of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), and who therefore qualified for receipt of abemaciclib, was investigated. METHODS: Females with pathologically node-positive nonmetastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer stratified by the number of +SLNs and +LNs and the presence of one or more HRFs were identified from the National Cancer Database (2018-2019). The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for abemaciclib both before and after ALND was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 22,048 patients identified, 1578 patients underwent upfront surgery, had one or two +SLNs without HRFs, and went on to cALND. Only 213 (13%) of these patients had ≥4 +LNs; thus, cALND performed solely to determine abemaciclib candidacy would have constituted surgical overtreatment in 1365 patients (87%). When stratified by the number of +SLNs, only 10% of those with one +SLN and 24% of those with two +SLNs had ≥4 +LNs after cALND, which meets the criteria for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with one +SLN without HRFs are unlikely to have ≥4 +LNs and should not be subjected to the morbidity of ALND in order to inform candidacy for abemaciclib. An individualized multidisciplinary discussion should be undertaken about the risk:benefit ratio of ALND and abemaciclib for those with two +SLNs.

Nodal Surgery for Patients ≥ 70 Undergoing Mastectomy for DCIS? Choose Wisely.

BACKGROUND: Routine sentinel lymphadenectomy (SLNB) for early-stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer in women ≥70 is discouraged by Choosing Wisely, but whether SLNB can be routinely omitted in women ≥70 with DCIS undergoing mastectomy is unclear. This study aims to evaluate rates of axillary surgery and nodal positivity (pN+) in this population to determine the impact of axillary surgery on treatment decisions. METHODS: Females ≥70 with DCIS undergoing mastectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database (2012-2020). The rate of upstaging to invasive cancer (≥pT1) or pN+ was assessed. Subset analyses were conducted for ER+ patients. Adjuvant therapies were evaluated among ≥pT1 patients after stratifying by nodal status. RESULTS: Of 9,030 patients, 1,896 (21%) upstaged to ≥pT1. Axillary surgery was performed in 86% of patients, predominantly sentinel lymphadenectomy (SLNB, 65%). Post hoc application of Choosing Wisely criteria demonstrated that 93% of the entire cohort and 97% of ER+ DCIS patients could have avoided axillary surgery. Nodal positivity was 0.3% among those who didn't upstage, and 12% among those upstaging to ≥pT1, with <2% having pN2-3 disease, irrespective of receptor subtype. Node-positive patients had higher adjuvant therapy usage, but there was no recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation for 71% and 66% of pN+ patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary surgery can be omitted for most patients ≥70 undergoing mastectomy for ER+ DCIS, aligning with recommendations for invasive cancer, and omission can be considered in those with ER- disease. Future guidelines incorporating preoperative imaging, as in the SOUND trial, may aid in identifying patients benefiting from axillary surgery.

Should Palpable Nodes Be Exclusionary in Patients Who Are Otherwise Candidates for ACOSOG Z0011-Type Trials?

BACKGROUND: Palpable nodes were exclusionary in American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011, while SINODAR-ONE excluded those with positive axillary nodes by palpation and ultrasound. To determine whether clinical nodal status should be exclusionary in those fulfilling pathologic criteria for ACOSOG Z0011 and similar trials, this study analyzed the accuracy and implications of clinical nodal positivity. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years old with cT1-T2, cN0-cN1, M0 breast cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2019. Subset characteristics of cN1 and cN0 were compared with respect to final pathologic nodal status and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 57,823 patients identified, 77.0% were cT1 and 23.0% were cT2. Of the 93.9% of patients who were staged as cN0, 16.7% were pN1; of the remaining 6.1% staged as cN1, 9.6% were found to be pN0. Among cN1/pN0 patients, 14.9% underwent axillary dissection without sentinel node biopsy. There was no difference in adjusted OS for patients staged as cN0 versus cN1 who were found to be pN1 (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.37, p = 0.22), a finding that persisted on subset analysis in those with two positive nodes (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.33, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical nodal stage does not affect OS in pN1 patients. Clinical nodal assessment can both overstage patients and result in unnecessary axillary surgery. These data suggest that cN1 patients who are otherwise candidates for a Z0011-like paradigm should still be considered eligible. Their final candidacy should be determined by surgical lymph node pathology and not preoperative clinical status.

The Impact of an Electromagnetic Seed Localization Device Versus Wire Localization on Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Matched-Pair Analysis.

BACKGROUND: For breast-conserving surgery (BCS), several alternatives to wire localization (WL) have been developed. The newest, electromagnetic seed localization (ESL), provides three-dimensional navigation using the electrosurgical tool. This study assessed operative times, specimen volumes, margin positivity, and re-excision rates for ESL and WL. METHODS: Patients who had ESL-guided breast-conserving surgery between August 2020 and August 2021 were reviewed and matched one-to-one with patients who had WL based on surgeon, procedure type, and pathology. Variables were compared between ESL and WL using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: The study matched 97 patients who underwent excisional biopsy (n = 20) or partial mastectomy with (n = 53) or without (n = 24) sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using ESL. The median operative time for ESL versus WL for lumpectomy was 66 versus 69 min with SLNB (p = 0.76) and 40 versus 34.5 min without SLNB (p = 0.17). The median specimen volume was 36 cm3 using ESL versus 55 cm3 using WL (p = 0.001). For the patients with measurable tumor volume, excess tissue was greater using WL versus ESL (median, 73.2 vs. 52.5 cm3; p = 0.017). The margins were positive for 10 (10 %) of the 97 ESL patients and 18 (19 %) of the 97 WL patients (p = 0.17). In the ESL group, 6 (6 %) of the 97 patients had a subsequent re-excision compared with 13 (13 %) of the 97 WL patients (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar operative times, ESL is superior to WL, as evidenced by decreased specimen volume and excess tissue excised. Although the difference was not statistically significant, ESL resulted in fewer positive margins and re-excisions than WL. Further studies are needed to confirm that ESL is the most advantageous of the two methods.

A tool to predict disparities in the timeliness of surgical treatment for breast cancer patients in the USA.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer outcomes are impaired by both delays and disparities in treatment. This study was performed to assess their relationship and to provide a tool to predict patient socioeconomic factors associated with risk for delay. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was reviewed between 2004 and 2017 for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer managed with upfront surgery. Times to treatment were measured from the date of diagnosis. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were assessed with attention paid to sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: 514,187 patients remained after exclusions, with 84.3% White, 10.8% Black, 3.7% Asian, and Hispanics comprising 5.6% of the cohort. Medicaid and uninsured patients had longer mean adjusted time to surgery (≥ 46 days) versus private (36.7 days), Medicare (35.9 days), or other governmental insurance (39.8 days). After adjustment, Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were most impactful, adding 6.0 and 6.4 preoperative days, 10.9 and 11.5 days to chemotherapy, 11.1 and 9.1 days to radiation, and 12.5 and 8.9 days to endocrine therapy, respectively. Income, education, and insurance, among other factors, also affected delay. A nomogram, including race and sociodemographic factors, was created to predict the risk of preoperative delay. CONCLUSION:  Significant disparities exist in timeliness of care for factors, including but not limited to, race and ethnicity. Although exact causes cannot be discerned, these data indicate population subsets whose intervals of care risk being longer than those specified by national quality standards. The nomogram created here may help direct resources to those at highest risk of incurring a treatment delay.

Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy and Delays in Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Implications for the Coronavirus Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Surgical delays are associated with invasive cancer for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) was used as a bridge until postponed surgeries resumed. This study sought to determine the impact of NET on the rate of invasive cancer for patients with a diagnosis of DCIS who have a surgical delay compared with those not treated with NET. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, the study identified women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) DCIS. The presence of invasion on final pathology was evaluated after stratifying by receipt of NET and by intervals based on time from diagnosis to surgery (≤30, 31-60, 61-90, 91-120, or 121-365 days). RESULTS: Of 109,990 women identified with HR+ DCIS, 276 (0.3%) underwent NET. The mean duration of NET was 74.4 days. The overall unadjusted rate of invasive cancer was similar between those who received NET ((15.6%) and those who did not (12.3%) (p = 0.10). In the multivariable analysis, neither the use nor the duration of NET were independently associated with invasion, but the trend across time-to-surgery categories demonstrated a higher rate of upgrade to invasive cancer in the no-NET group (p < 0.001), but not in the NET group (p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of a pre-COVID cohort showed evidence for a protective effect of NET in HR+ DCIS against the development of invasive cancer as the preoperative delay increased, although an appropriately powered prospective trial is needed for a definitive answer.

Does the false-negative rate for 1 or 2 negative sentinel nodes after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy translate into a high local recurrence rate?

Prospective trials demonstrate that sentinel node (SN) biopsy after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has a significant false-negative rate (FNR) when only 1 or 2 SNs are removed. It is unknown whether this increased FNR correlates with an elevated risk of recurrence. Tumor Registry data at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center were reviewed from 2004 to 2018 for patients having a negative SN biopsy after NACT. Among 190 patients with histologically negative nodes after NACT having 1 (n = 42), 2 (n = 46), and ≥3 (n = 102) SNs, axillary recurrences occurred in 7.14%, 0%, and 1.96% (p = 0.09), breast recurrences occurred in 2.38%, 6.52%, and 0.98% (p = 0.12), and distance recurrences occurred in 16.67%, 8.70%, and 7.84% (p = 0.27), respectively. Time to first recurrence did not differ by SN count (p = 0.41). After adjustment for age, race, clinical stage, and receptor status, there were no differences in the rates of axillary (p = 0.26), breast (p = 0.44), or distance recurrence (p = 0.24) by numbers of SNs harvested. Median follow-up was 46.8 months. Despite higher post-NACT FNRs reported in randomized trials for patients having <3 sentinel nodes, recurrence rates were not significantly different for 1 versus 2 versus ≥3 SNs. This suggests that patients having 1 or 2 post-NACT SNs identified may not necessitate axillary dissection.

Preoperative Delays in the Treatment of DCIS and the Associated Incidence of Invasive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment delays have been associated with survival impairment for invasive breast cancer, this has not been thoroughly investigated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). With trials underway to assess whether DCIS can remain unresected, this study was performed to determine whether longer times to surgery are associated with survival impairment or increased invasion. METHODS: A population-based study of prospectively collected national data derived from women with a clinical diagnosis of DCIS between 2004 and 2014 was conducted using the National Cancer Database. Overall survival (OS) and presence of invasion were assessed as functions of time by evaluating five intervals (≤ 30, 31-60, 61-90, 91-120, 121-365 days) between diagnosis and surgery. Subset analyses assessed those having pathologic DCIS versus invasive cancer on final pathology. RESULTS: Among 140,615 clinical DCIS patients, 123,947 had pathologic diagnosis of DCIS and 16,668 had invasive ductal carcinoma. For all patients, 5-year OS was 95.8% and unadjusted median delay from diagnosis to surgery was 38 days. With each delay interval increase, added relative risk of death was 7.4% (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.05-1.10; P < 0.001). On final pathology, 5-year OS for noninvasive patients was 96.0% (95% CI 95.9-96.1%) versus 94.9% (95% CI 94.6-95.3%) for invasive patients. Increasing delay to surgery was an independent predictor of invasion (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11-1.15; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent OS for invasive and noninvasive cohorts, invasion was seen more frequently as delay increased. This suggests that DCIS trials evaluating nonoperative management, which represents infinite delay, require long term follow up to ensure outcomes are not compromised.

Time to Surgery and the Impact of Delay in the Non-Neoadjuvant Setting on Triple-Negative Breast Cancers and Other Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Characterization of breast cancer phenotypes has improved our ability to predict breast cancer behavior. Triple-negative (TN) breast cancers have higher and earlier rates of distant events. It has been suggested that this behavior necessitates treating TNs faster than others, including use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) if time to surgery is not rapid. METHODS: A review of women diagnosed with non-inflammatory, invasive breast cancer was conducted using the National Cancer Database for patients not having NACT, diagnosed between 2010 and 2014. Changes in overall survival due to delay were measured by phenotype. RESULTS: Overall, 351,087 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 36,505 (10.4%) TNs, 77.9% hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and 11.7% human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched (HER2+). Phenotype, among other factors, was predictive of treatment delays. Adjusted median days from diagnosis to surgery and chemotherapy were 29.9, 31.6 and 31.5 (p< 0.001), and 72.7, 78.0 and 74.4 (p< 0.001) for TNs, HR+ and HER2+ cancers, respectively. After diagnosis, OS declined for all patients per month of preoperative delay (hazard ratio 1.104; p< 0.001). In models separating or combining surgery and chemotherapy, this survival decline did not vary by breast cancer phenotype (p > 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Delays cause small but measurable effects overall, but the effect on survival does not differ among breast cancer phenotypes. Our data suggest that urgency between diagnosis and surgery or chemotherapy is similar for breast cancers of different subtypes. Although NACT is sometimes advocated solely to avoid treatment delays, this study does not suggest a greater surgical urgency for TNs compared with other breast cancer phenotypes.

Breast conservation versus mastectomy in patients with T3 breast cancers (> 5 cm): an analysis of 37,268 patients from the National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: Breast conservation therapy (BCT) is standard for T1-T2 tumors, but early trials excluded breast cancers > 5 cm. This study was performed to assess patterns and outcomes of BCT for T3 tumors. METHODS: We reviewed the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for noninflammatory breast cancers > 5 cm, between 2004 and 2011 who underwent BCT or mastectomy (Mtx) with nodal evaluation. Patients with skin or chest wall involvement were excluded. Patients having clinical T3 tumors were analyzed to determine outcomes based upon presentation, with those having pathologic T3 tumors, subsequently assessed, irrespective of presentation. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, with adjusted survival curves estimated using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: After exclusions, 37,268 patients remained. Median age and tumor size for BCT versus Mtx were 53 versus 54 years (p < 0.001) and 6.0 versus 6.7 cm (p < 0.001), respectively. Predictors of BCT included age, race, location, facility type, year of diagnosis, tumor size, grade, histology, nodes examined and positive, and administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. OS was similar between Mtx and BCT (p = 0.36). This held true when neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients were excluded (p = 0.39). BCT percentages declined over time (p < 0.001), while tumor sizes remained the same (p = 0.77). Median follow-up was 51.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: OS for patients with T3 breast cancers is similar whether patients received Mtx or BCT, confirming that tumor size should not be an absolute BCT exclusion. Declining use of BCT for tumors > 5 cm in younger patients may be accounted for by recent trends toward mastectomy.

Treatment times in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy: Is efficiency a benefit of preoperative chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Delays in times to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy impair survival in breast cancer patients. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) confers equivalent survival to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), but it remains unknown which approach facilitates faster initiation and completion of treatment. METHODS: Women ≥18 years old with nonrecurrent, noninflammatory, clinical stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who underwent both surgery and chemotherapy were reviewed from the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: Among 155 606 women overall, 28 241 patients received NAC and 127 365 patients received AC. NAC patients had higher clinical T and N stages (35.8% T3/4 vs 4.9% T3/4; 14.4% N2/3 vs 3.7% N2/3). After adjusting for stage and other factors, NAC patients had longer times to begin treatment (36.1 vs 35.4 days adjusted, P = .15), and took significantly longer to start radiotherapy (240.8 vs 218.2 days adjusted, P < .0001), and endocrine therapy (301.6 vs 275.7 days adjusted, P < .0001). Unplanned readmissions (1.2% vs 1.7%), 30-day mortality (0.04% vs 0.01%), and 90-day mortality (0.30% vs 0.08%) were all low and clinically insignificant between NAC and AC. CONCLUSION: Compared to patients receiving AC, those receiving NAC do not start treatment sooner. In addition, patients receiving NAC do not complete treatment faster. Although there are clear indications for administering NAC vs AC, rapidity of treatment should not be considered a benefit of giving chemotherapy preoperatively.

Patterns of Care and Efficacy of Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy in Skin-Involved Breast Cancers of All Sizes.

BACKGROUND: The management of small skin-involved (SI) invasive breast cancers is controversial because although they are considered unresectable, their prognosis is far better than their stage III classification. This study was undertaken to determine how SI lesions are treated in the United States and to discern the benefit of systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of patients diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2011 were reviewed. Treatment patterns were examined and overall survival assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3485 patients had SI and 456,287 patients had non-SI breast cancers. Chemotherapy was administered to 68.5% of SI and 45.9% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 77.2% of SI and 33% of non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P < .001). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 19.4% more likely to receive chemotherapy than non-SI patients. Radiotherapy was provided to 61.1% of SI and 64.3% of non-SI tumors (P < .001), including 65.5% of SI and 66.5% non-SI tumors < 2 cm (P = .711). After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, SI patients were 76.6% more likely to receive radiotherapy than non-SI patients. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy provided an overall survival benefit for stage II and III SI and non-SI tumors. CONCLUSION: Despite controversy regarding staging and prognosis of SI tumors, the majority of patients are provided systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Varied patterns of chemotherapy administration for SI tumors suggests that further treatment guidance and standardization are required, especially because chemotherapy and radiotherapy are equally efficacious in SI and non-SI tumors alike.

Extensive multifocal mammary infarction - a case report.

BACKGROUND: Breast infarction can occur in benign breast lesions, such as fibroadenomas, as well as healthy breast tissue, typically in the gravid or lactating patient. Few theories, however, exist to explain this unusual lesion. CASE REPORT: We present a very rare case of a 27-year-old female patient with extensive, multifocal, bilateral mammary infarction. A literature search was also performed to confirm its rarity. Although solitary or limited areas of spontaneous infarction have been documented, there are no documented cases where such a large, multifocal area of involvement has occurred without obvious explanation. CONCLUSION: Extensive multifocal post-partum breast infarction is a rare occurrence that has potential long-term effects. This should be considered when taking patient history in post-partum patients, as well as those with extensive calcifications on mammogram years after giving birth.