Ten-year trend analysis of breast cancer, oncoplastic, and reconstructive breast surgery in a single institution (2010-2019), what has not changed?

PURPOSE: There has been a UK national directive to ensure that patients are offered reconstructive surgical options. We aimed to assess any change in oncoplastic practice over a 10-year period. METHODS: The surgical management of 7019 breast cancers was retrospectively assessed at Nightingale Breast Centre, Manchester University UK, from 2010 to 2019. The procedures were categorised into breast conservative surgery (BCS) and mastectomy ± immediate reconstruction. The data were analysed using inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: The overall rates of BCS and mastectomy were 60.1% and 39.9% respectively. No statistically significant change in the overall rates of BCS or mastectomy was observed over the last decade (p = 0.08). The rate of simple wide local excision (WLE) decreased from 98.7% to 89.3% (p < 0.001), whilst the rate of therapeutic mammoplasty (TM) increased from 1.3% to 8% (p < 0.01). The rate of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) changed from zero to account for 2.7% of all BCS by 2019. The overall rate of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) did not significantly change over the study period, but it consistently remained above the national average of 27%. The rate of implant-based IBR increased from 61.3% to 76.5% (p = 0.012), whilst the rate of Latissimus Dorsi (LD) reconstruction decreased from 26.7% to 5.1% (p < 0.05). Additionally, the rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly increased from 5.2% to 24%. CONCLUSION: No significant changes in the overall rates of BCS was observed, the rates of advanced breast conservation techniques, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and implant-based IBR all have increased, whilst the use of LD reconstruction decreased.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgical Management of Breast Cancer: Global Trends and Future Perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe is forcing surgical oncologists to change their daily practice. We sought to evaluate how breast surgeons are adapting their surgical activity to limit viral spread and spare hospital resources. METHODS: A panel of 12 breast surgeons from the most affected regions of the world convened a virtual meeting on April 7, 2020, to discuss the changes in their local surgical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, a Web-based poll based was created to evaluate changes in surgical practice among breast surgeons from several countries. RESULTS: The virtual meeting showed that distinct countries and regions were experiencing different phases of the pandemic. Surgical priority was given to patients with aggressive disease not candidate for primary systemic therapy, those with progressive disease under neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and patients who have finished neoadjuvant therapy. One hundred breast surgeons filled out the poll. The trend showed reductions in operating room schedules, indications for surgery, and consultations, with an increasingly restrictive approach to elective surgery with worsening of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 emergency should not compromise treatment of a potentially lethal disease such as breast cancer. Our results reveal that physicians are instinctively reluctant to abandon conventional standards of care when possible. However, as the situation deteriorates, alternative strategies of de-escalation are being adopted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study aimed to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting breast cancer surgery and which strategies are being adopted to cope with the situation.

Preoperative Paravertebral Block and Chronic Pain after Breast Cancer Surgery: A Double-blind Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of paravertebral block in preventing chronic pain after breast surgery remains controversial. The primary hypothesis of this study was that paravertebral block reduces the incidence of chronic pain 3 months after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, 380 women undergoing partial or complete mastectomy with or without lymph node dissection were randomized to receive preoperative paravertebral block with either 0.35 ml/kg 0.75% ropivacaine (paravertebral group) or saline (control group). Systemic multimodal analgesia was administered in both groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of chronic pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score greater than or equal to 3 out of 10, 3 months after surgery. The secondary outcomes were acute pain, analgesic consumption, nausea and vomiting, chronic pain at 6 and 12 months, neuropathic pain, pain interference, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: Overall, 178 patients received ropivacaine, and 174 received saline. At 3 months, chronic pain was reported in 93 of 178 (52.2%) and 83 of 174 (47.7%) patients in the paravertebral and control groups, respectively (odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.82], P = 0.394). At 6 and 12 months, chronic pain occurred in 104 of 178 (58.4%) versus 79 of 174 (45.4%) and 105 of 178 (59.0%) versus 93 of 174 (53.4%) patients in the paravertebral and control groups, respectively. Greater acute postoperative pain was observed in the control group 0 to 2 h (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve at rest, 4.3 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.8 VAS score units × hours, P < 0.001) and when maximal in this interval (3.8 ± 2.1 vs. 2.5 ± 2.5, P < 0.001) but not during any other interval. Postoperative morphine use was 73% less in the paravertebral group (odds ratio, 0.272 [95% CI, 0.171 to 0.429]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Paravertebral block did not reduce the incidence of chronic pain after breast surgery. Paravertebral block did result in less immediate postoperative pain, but there were no other significant differences in postoperative outcomes.

Delay in breast cancer diagnosis and its clinical consequences during the coronavirus disease pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: At the end of 1 year of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, we aimed to reveal the changes in breast cancer cases in the context of cause and effect based on the data of surgically treated patients in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of patients who were operated in the year before the COVID-19 pandemic, and Group 2 consisted of patients who were operated within the first year of the pandemic. Tumor size, axillary lymph node positivity, distant organ metastasis status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and type of surgery performed were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The tumor size, axillary lymph node positivity, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p = .005, p = .012, p = .042, respectively). In addition, the number of breast-conserving surgery + sentinel lymph node biopsy were lower, while the number of mastectomy and modified radical mastectomy were higher in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p = .034). CONCLUSION: Patients presented with larger breast tumors and increased axillary involvement during the pandemic. Moreover, distant organ metastases may increase in the future.

Trends in Peripheral Nerve Block Usage in Mastectomy and Lumpectomy: Analysis of a National Database From 2010 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Compared to general anesthesia, regional anesthesia confers several benefits including improved pain control and decreased postoperative opioid consumption. While the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks (PNB) have been well studied, there are little epidemiological data on PNB usage in mastectomy and lumpectomy procedures. The primary objective of our study was to assess national trends of the annual proportion of PNB use in breast surgery from 2010 to 2018. We also identified factors associated with PNB use for breast surgery. METHODS: We identified lumpectomy and mastectomy surgical cases with and without PNB between 2010 and 2018 using the Anesthesia Quality Institute National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry (AQI NACOR). We modeled the nonlinear association between year of procedure and PNB use with segmented mixed-effects logistic regression clustered on facility identifier. The association between PNB use and year of procedure, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS), facility type, facility region, weekday, and tissue expander use was also modeled using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 189,854 surgical cases from 2010 to 2018 that met criteria, 86.2% were lumpectomy cases and 13.8% were mastectomy cases. The proportion of lumpectomy cases with PNB was <0.1% in 2010 and increased each subsequent year to 1.9% in 2018 (trend P < .0001). The proportion of mastectomy cases with PNB was 0.5% in 2010 and 13% in 2018 (trend P < .0001). The year 2014 was the breakpoint selected for segmented regression. Before 2014, the odds of PNB among the mastectomy cases was not significantly different from year to year. After 2014, the odds of PNB increased by 2.24-fold each year (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-2.49; P < .001); interaction test for pre-2014 versus post-2014 was P < .001. Similar trends were seen in the lumpectomy cases, where after 2014, the odds of PNB increased by 2.03-fold (95% CI, 1.81-2.27; P < .001); interaction test for pre-2014 versus post-2014 was P < .001. In the mastectomy cohort, year of procedure ≥2014, female sex, facility region, and tissue expander use were associated with higher odds of PNB. For lumpectomy cases, year of procedure ≥2014 and facility region were associated with higher odds of PNB use. CONCLUSIONS: We found increased annual utilization of PNB for mastectomy and lumpectomy since 2010, although absolute prevalence is low. PNB use was associated with year of procedure for both lumpectomy and mastectomy, particularly post-2014.

Changes in Korean National Healthcare Insurance Policy and Breast Cancer Surgery Trend in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Since April 2015, the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) has reimbursed breast cancer patients, approximately 50% of the cost of the breast reconstruction (BR) procedure. We aimed to investigate NHI reimbursement policy influence on the rate of immediate BR (IBR) following total mastectomy (TM). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed breast cancer data between April 2011 and June 2016. We divided patients who underwent IBR following TM for primary breast cancer into "uninsured" and "insured" groups using their NHI statuses at the time of surgery. Univariate analyses determined the insurance influence on the decision to undergo IBR. RESULTS: Of 2,897 breast cancer patients, fewer uninsured patients (n = 625) underwent IBR compared with those insured (n = 325) (30.0% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001). Uninsured patients were younger than those insured (median age [range], 43 [38-48] vs. 45 [40-50] years; P < 0.001). Pathologic breast cancer stage did not differ between the groups (P = 0.383). More insured patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.011), adjuvant radiotherapy (P < 0.001), and IBR with tissue expander insertion (P = 0.005) compared with those uninsured. CONCLUSION: IBR rate in patients undergoing TM increased after NHI reimbursement.

Dexamethasone Dose and Early Postoperative Recovery after Mastectomy: A Double-blind, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain and nausea are the most common challenges in postoperative recovery after mastectomy. Preventive measures include multimodal analgesia with preoperative glucocorticoid. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 24 mg of preoperative dexamethasone was superior to 8 mg on early recovery after mastectomy in addition to a simple analgesic protocol. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients 18 yr of age or older having mastectomy were randomized 1:1 to 24 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone, and all received a standardized anesthetic and surgical protocol with preoperative acetaminophen, total intravenous anesthesia, and local anesthetic wound infiltration. The primary endpoint was number of patients transferred to the postanesthesia care unit according to standardized discharge criteria (modified Aldrete score). Secondary endpoints included pain and nausea at extubation, transfer from the operating room and upon arrival at the ward, length of stay, seroma occurrence, and wound infections. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients (65 in each group) were included and analyzed for the primary outcome. Twenty-three (35%) in each group met the primary outcome, without significant differences in standardized discharge scores (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.49 to 2.05], P > 0.999). More patients had seroma requiring drainage in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, 94% versus 81%, respectively (odds ratio, 3.53 [95% CI, 1.07 to 11.6], P = 0.030). Median pain scores were low at all measured time points, numeric rating scale less than or equal to 2 versus less than or equal to 1 in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, respectively. Six patients in each group (9%) experienced nausea at any time during hospital stay (P > 0.999). Length of stay was median 11 and 9.2 h in the 24 and 8 mg group, respectively (P = 0.217). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no evidence of 24 mg versus 8 mg of dexamethasone affecting the primary outcome regarding immediate recovery after mastectomy. The authors observed a short length of stay and low pain scores despite a simple analgesic protocol.

The changing surgical treatment of breast cancer in the United States: The tipping point.

The surgical management of breast cancer began to change in the middle of the last decade. The use of unilateral mastectomy decreased while the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer increased sixfold from 1998 to 2011. The use of immediate breast reconstruction increased from 30% in 2005 to 45% in 2012. Four changes came together in the middle of the last decade to cause this paradigm shift in the surgical management of early breast cancer. (a) Breast MRI would be available in nearly 75% of breast imaging centers. (b) Genetic counseling would become a standard of care for patients with potential hereditary breast cancer. (c) In 2006, the FDA would approve the use of silicone-gel implants. (d) Nipple-sparing mastectomy would become a standard of care in the treatment of early breast cancer.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Long-Term Outcomes: Early and Late Complications.

Background and Objectives: The surgical choice treatment of the breast cancer mostly depends on the stage of the disease. In the last years, breast cancer surgery has moved from being destructive to being more respectful of the anatomical and physiological integrity of the gland. The aim of the breast surgery should be finalized to obtain the best aesthetic and functional results, respecting the principles of oncologic radicality. The present study is a retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative technique like the nipple-sparing mastectomy. Materials and Methods: We observed 894 patients with a median age of 47.5 years old, underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy between 2002-2017. The data acquired include population and tumor characteristics, patient reconstructive outcomes, including locoregional, regional, and distant metastases; other variables, among nipple-areola complex necrosis and infection were collected. Results: The complications detected were considered as "early" within 1 month later the nipple-sparing mastectomy or "late" after this time. The overall complications rate (early and late) and the overall survival and the relapses detected by this study were comparable with those reported in the literature. In order to identify factors that correlate with complications, either early or later, it has been processed an evaluation of the univariate analysis showing adjuvant chemotherapy as the only predictive factor for late complications, while we encountered no predictors for early complications. Conclusions: The present study adds to the data already present in literature, demonstrating that the nipple-sparing mastectomy is a safe procedure, providing good oncological and aesthetic results in patients carefully selected.

[Comparison of diagnosis and treatment of invasive breast cancer between Iceland and Sweden].

PURPOSE: As part of the implementation of quality registration in Iceland we used retrospective data to compare diagnosis and treatment of invasive breast cancer between Iceland and Sweden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on all patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Iceland 2016-2017 was obtained from the Icelandic Cancer Registry. Hospital records were used to register variables in an electronic form adapted from the Swedish quality registration, and compared with data from Sweden for the same period. A chi-square test was used to compare ratios. RESULTS: A total of 486 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in Iceland and 15.325 in Sweden. A lower proportion of 40-69 year old women were diagnosed within the screening programme in Iceland (46%) compared to Sweden (60%) (p<0.01). Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings held before and after surgery were less frequent in Iceland (92% vs. 96%) compared to Sweden (98% vs. 99%) in 2016 (p<0,01) but no difference was seen in 2017. A sentinel node surgery was done in 69% of the cases in Iceland compared to 94% in Sweden (p<0,01). For cancers ≤30mm breast conserving surgery was done in 48% cases in Iceland but 80% in Sweden (p<0,01). In Iceland 87% of the cases had radiation therapy after breast conserving surgery but 94% in Sweden (p<0,01). Among mastectomy patients with lymph node metastases, 49% received radiation therapy in Iceland compared to 83% in Sweden (p<0,01). CONCLUSION: Differences were seen in several areas of diagnosis and treatment of invasive breast cancer between Iceland and Sweden. With quality registration it will be possible to monitor and set goals for the diagnosis and treatment, with the aim of providing the best treatment to as many patients as possible.

Trends in frequency and outcome of high-risk breast lesions at core needle biopsy in women recalled at biennial screening mammography, a multiinstitutional study.

Between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, we studied the incidence, management and outcome of high-risk breast lesions in a consecutive series of 376,519 screens of women who received biennial screening mammography. During the 6-year period covered by the study, the proportion of women who underwent core needle biopsy (CNB) after recall remained fairly stable, ranging from 39.2% to 48.1% (mean: 44.2%, 5,212/11,783), whereas the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB (i.e., flat epithelial atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ and papillary lesions) gradually increased from 3.2% (25/775) in 2011 to 9.5% (86/901) in 2016 (p < 0.001). The mean proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB that were subsequently treated with diagnostic surgical excision was 51.4% (169/329) and varied between 41.0% and 64.3% through the years, but the excision rate for high-risk lesions per 1,000 screens and per 100 recalls increased from 0.25 (2011) to 0.70 (2016; p < 0.001) and from 0.81 (2011) to 2.50 (2016; p < 0.001), respectively. The proportion of all diagnostic surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer was 29.0% (49/169) and varied from 22.2% (8/36) in 2014 to 38.5% (5/13) in 2011. In conclusion, the proportion of high-risk lesions at CNB tripled in a 6-year period, with a concomitant increased excision rate for these lesions. As the proportion of surgical excisions showing in situ or invasive breast cancer did not increase, a rising number of screened women underwent invasive surgical excision with benign outcome.

Surgical Resection of the Primary Tumor in Women With De Novo Stage IV Breast Cancer: Contemporary Practice Patterns and Survival Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated patterns of surgical care and their association with overall survival among a contemporary cohort of women with stage IV breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of the primary tumor remains controversial among women with stage IV breast cancer. METHODS: Women diagnosed with clinical stage IV breast cancer from 2003 to 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database. Those with intact primary tumors who were alive 12 months after diagnosis were categorized by treatment sequence: (1) surgery before systemic therapy, (2) systemic therapy before surgery, and (3) systemic therapy alone. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of treatment sequence with surgery type. Overall survival was estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 24,015 women, 56.2% (13,505) underwent systemic therapy alone and 43.8% (10,510) underwent surgical resection. Rates of surgery decreased slightly over time (43.1% in 2003 to 41.9% in 2011). Treatment with systemic therapy before surgery was associated with larger tumor size (median 4.5 vs 3.1 cm, P < 0.001) and receipt of mastectomy (81.4% vs 52.2%, P < 0.001) when compared to those who underwent surgery first. Receipt of surgery, whether before or after systemic therapy (Hazard Ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.73; Hazard Ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.61; P < 0.001), was independently associated with improved adjusted overall survival when compared to systemic therapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of the primary tumor occurs in almost half of women with stage IV breast cancer alive 1 year after diagnosis, and is increasingly occurring after systemic therapy. Coordinated multidisciplinary care remains highly relevant in the setting of metastatic breast cancer, where surgical decisions should be made on an individual basis and may affect survival in select women.

Surgical trends in breast cancer: a rise in novel operative treatment options over a 12 year analysis.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer surgical techniques are evolving. Few studies have analyzed national trends for the multitude of surgical options that include partial mastectomy (PM), mastectomy without reconstruction (M), mastectomy with reconstruction (M+R), and PM with oncoplastic reconstruction (OS). We hypothesize that the use of M is declining and likely correlates with the rise of surgery with reconstructive options (M+R, OS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2016 and ICD codes for IBC and DCIS. Patients were then grouped together based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for PM, M, M+R, and OS. In each group, categories were sorted again based on additional reconstructive procedures. Data analysis was conducted via Pearson's chi-squared test for demographics, linear regression, and a non-parametric Mann- Kendall test to assess a temporal trend. RESULTS: The patient cohort consisted of 256,398 patients from the NSQIP data base; 197,387 meet inclusion criteria diagnosed with IBC or DCIS. Annual breast surgery trends changed as follows: PM 46.3-46.1% (p = 0.21), M 35.8-26.4% (p = 0.001), M+R 15.9-23.0% (p = 0.03), and OS 1.8-4.42% (p = 0.001). Analyzing the patient cohort who underwent breast conservation, categorical analysis showed a decreased use of PM alone (96-91%) with an increased use of OS (4-9%). For the patient cohort undergoing mastectomy, M alone decreased (69-53%); M+R with muscular flap decreased (9-2%); and M+R with implant placement increased (20-40%)-all three trends p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: The modern era of breast surgery is identified by the increasing use of reconstruction for patients undergoing breast conservation (in the form of OS) and mastectomy (in the form of M+R). Our study provides data showing significant trends that will impact the future of both breast cancer surgery and breast training programs.

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.

National Patterns of Breast Reconstruction and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer, 2005-2015.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore national patterns in the uptake of breast reconstruction and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify all women who underwent mastectomy for stage 0-III breast cancer between 2005-2015. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with receipt of reconstruction, with subset analyses performed to determine trends and predictors of NSM in those who underwent mastectomy with reconstruction. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 395,815 women, 238,568 (60.3%) who underwent mastectomy alone and 157,247 (39.7%) who underwent mastectomy followed by reconstruction. The use of breast reconstruction increased from 22.3% of mastectomy cases in 2005 to 49.7% of mastectomy cases in 2015 (odds ratio [OR] 9.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3-12.8). Among those receiving reconstruction, the use of NSM increased from 1.7% in 2005 to 14.3% in 2015 (OR 9.4, 95% CI 7.1-12.5), with increased utilization among those with early-stage and locally advanced disease, such that by 2015, NSM was performed in 15.3% of mastectomies with reconstruction for DCIS, 14.3% of mastectomies with reconstruction for stage I-II breast cancer, and 10.7% of mastectomies with reconstruction for stage III breast cancer. Factors strongly predicting receipt of NSM included age < 45 years, smaller clinical tumor size, clinically node negative disease, use of neoadjuvant therapy, and facility type. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast reconstruction and NSM between 2005-2015. Further prospective studies evaluating oncologic outcomes of NSM in locally advanced breast cancer are warranted.

Trends in surgical treatment for breast cancer in Germany after the implementation of the mammography screening program.

In Germany, the nationwide population-based mammography screening program (MSP) was introduced in 2005 and is full-running since 2010. By 2014, incidence rates for invasive breast cancer were very similar to those of the pre-screening era. Therefore, the ongoing effect of the MSP on breast cancer surgery rates can now be investigated. We analyzed population-based breast-conserving (BCS) and mastectomy (MET) surgery rates (per 100,000) among women aged < 50, 50-69 (eligible for the MSP), and 70+ years among women with in situ and invasive breast cancer during 2005-2015. For invasive breast cancer, both BCS and MET rates slightly increased in the age group < 50 years (38.3 in 2005 vs 42.5 in 2015 and 15.7 vs 18.2, respectively). In contrast, MET rates considerably decreased among women aged 50-69 and 70+ years (92 vs 65.4 and 155.4 vs 122.1, respectively), while BCS rates increased in both age groups (210.6 vs 254.4 and 147.2 vs 187, respectively). For in situ breast cancer, MET rates slightly increased in all age groups. BCS rates slightly increased in women aged < 50, but nearly doubled for women aged 50-69 (26.9 vs 49.1) and markedly increased in the 70+ age group (11.5 vs 16.1). During and after the implementation of MSP, there was a strong shift towards BCS within the screening-eligible age group and for women aged 70+ . Women with invasive breast cancer in these age groups may profit from screening with a decline of MET rates in favor of BCS rates at the expense of higher surgery rates for in situ breast cancer.

Comparison of breast-conserving therapy vs mastectomy in women under age 40: National trends and potential survival implications.

INTRODUCTION: Despite initial increased rates of breast-conserving therapy compared to mastectomy after 1990, mastectomy rates have increased in women under age 40 since 2000. Our study explores the demographic and survival implications of this trend. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to study stage 1 breast cancer diagnosed in women under age 40 between 2004 and 2014. Demographic and clinical data were obtained. Multivariable regression and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 11 859 patients under age 40, 57.2% underwent mastectomy (39.0% unilateral and 61.0% bilateral) rather than breast-conserving therapy (42.8%). The rate of mastectomy was significantly higher in 2014 compared to 2004 (43.6% in 2004 vs 62.4% in 2014; P < 0.001). The rate of bilateral mastectomy was significantly higher in 2014 compared to 2004 in contrast to unilateral mastectomy (31.7% in 2004 vs 73.0% in 2014; P < 0.001). Non-Hispanic Caucasian ethnicity and private insurance status were predictors of bilateral mastectomy (OR 2.06 [95% CI: 1.84-2.30], P < 0.001; OR 1.39 [95% CI: 1.21-1.59], P < 0.001). Controlling for demographics, tumor grade, and adjuvant therapies, bilateral mastectomy was associated with significantly increased 10-year survival vs unilateral mastectomy (HR 0.75 [0.59-0.96], P = 0.023). Additionally, breast-conserving therapy was associated with significantly increased 10-year survival vs unilateral (HR 2.36 [95% CI: 1.83-3.05]; P < 0.001) and bilateral mastectomy (HR 2.30 [95% CI: 1.61-3.27]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women under age 40 with stage 1 invasive breast cancer underwent mastectomy instead of breast-conserving therapy. This largely reflects increased rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Bilateral mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy vs unilateral mastectomy were associated with a small but significant increase in survival. This finding warrants further investigation to determine the clinical implications of decision-making in younger women.

Opportunities and priorities for breast surgical research.

The 2013 Breast Cancer Campaign gap analysis established breast cancer research priorities without a specific focus on surgical research or the role of surgeons on breast cancer research. This Review aims to identify opportunities and priorities for research in breast surgery to complement the 2013 gap analysis. To identify these goals, research-active breast surgeons met and identified areas for breast surgery research that mapped to the patient pathway. Areas included diagnosis, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant therapy, and attention to special groups (eg, those receiving risk-reducing surgery). Section leads were identified based on research interests, with invited input from experts in specific areas, supported by consultation with members of the Association of Breast Surgery and Independent Cancer Patients' Voice groups. The document was iteratively modified until participants were satisfied that key priorities for surgical research were clear. Key research gaps included issues surrounding overdiagnosis and treatment; optimising treatment options and their selection for neoadjuvant therapies and subsequent surgery; reducing rates of re-operations for breast-conserving surgery; generating evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction, and mechanisms for assessing novel interventions; establishing optimal axillary management, especially post-neoadjuvant treatment; and defining and standardising indications for risk-reducing surgery. We propose strategies for resolving these knowledge gaps. Surgeons are ideally placed for a central role in breast cancer research and should foster a culture of engagement and participation in research to benefit patients and health-care systems. Development of infrastructure and surgical research capacity, together with appropriate allocation of research funding, is needed to successfully address the key clinical and translational research gaps that are highlighted in this Review within the next two decades.

Results from the American Society of Breast Surgeons Oncoplastic Surgery Committee 2017 Survey: Current Practice and Future Directions.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery is emerging as a validated, safe, patient-centric approach to breast cancer surgery in the United States. The American Society of Breast Surgeons Oncoplastic Surgery Committee (ASBrS-OSC) conducted a survey to assess the scope of practice and level of interest in oncoplastic surgery among its members. Furthermore, the group sought to identify barriers to incorporating oncoplastic skills in a surgeon's practice. METHODS: A 10-question survey was administered in March 2017 to the entire ASBrS membership using an online format. Three solicitations were sent. Unique identifiers allowed a single response. RESULTS: Of the 2655 surveys sent out, 708 members responded. Nearly all (99%) respondents had at least some interest in oncoplastic surgery. The current rates of performing nipple-sparing mastectomy, adjacent tissue transfer, and breast reduction with lumpectomy were 80, 60, and 51%, respectively. A minority of respondents reported independently performing breast reductions/mammaplasties (19%) or contralateral symmetrization (10%). Barriers to learning oncoplastic surgery included surgeon's time and access to oncoplastic educational material/courses. Most respondents felt that training courses and videos may allow them to better incorporate oncoplastic techniques in their practices. CONCLUSIONS: The interest in oncoplastic surgery among U.S. surgeons is significant, yet there are barriers to incorporate these surgical techniques into a breast surgeon's practice. As professional organizations provide access to effective training and enduring educational resources, breast surgeons will be enabled to develop their oncoplastic skill set and safely offer these techniques to their patients.

The Shifting Paradigm for Breast Cancer Surgery in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical therapy for newly diagnosed breast cancer has changed over the past decade, but these trends have not been well documented in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy (NAC). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we selected 285,514 women with clinical stage I-III breast cancer who underwent NAC or adjuvant therapy (AC) from 2006 to 2014. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS), unilateral mastectomy (UM), and bilateral mastectomy (BM) rates were compared between patients undergoing NAC and AC. RESULTS: Of 285,514 women, 68,850 (24.1%) underwent NAC. Of NAC patients, 18,158 (26.4%) underwent BM and 27,349 (39.7%) BCS compared with 31,886 (14.7%) and 120,626 (55.7%) AC patients, respectively. From 2006 to 2014, BM increased from 16.1 to 28.8% (p < 0.001) for NAC and from 7.4 to 17.5% (p < 0.001) for AC. After adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors, NAC patients were 1.50 times [odds ratio (OR) 1.50, confidence interval (CI) 1.42-1.51] more likely to undergo BM then AC patients. The difference in BM rates between patients receiving NAC versus AC varied significantly by cT classification. This difference was the greatest among cT1 tumors between NAC and AC (31.7 vs. 13.0%, p < 0.001), followed by cT2 tumors (24.1 vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001) and cT3 tumors (24.3 vs. 22.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More NAC patients are undergoing BM while fewer are undergoing BCS compared with patients undergoing AC. This trend is particularly striking for those patients with smaller tumors who would otherwise be candidates for BCS.