Postoperative radiotherapy omission in selected patients with early breast cancer following preoperative breast MRI (PROSPECT): primary results of a prospective two-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant breast radiotherapy as a standard component of breast-conserving treatment for early cancer can overtreat many women. Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality to assess local tumour burden. The aim of this study was to determine whether a combination of MRI and pathology findings can identify women with truly localised breast cancer who can safely avoid radiotherapy. METHODS: PROSPECT is a prospective, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised trial of radiotherapy omission in patients selected using preoperative MRI and postoperative tumour pathology. It is being conducted at four academic hospitals in Australia. Women aged 50 years or older with cT1N0 non-triple-negative breast cancer were eligible. Those with apparently unifocal cancer had breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and, if pT1N0 or N1mi, had radiotherapy omitted (group 1). Standard treatment including excision of MRI-detected additional cancers was offered to the others (group 2). All were recommended systemic therapy. The primary outcome was ipsilateral invasive recurrence rate (IIRR) at 5 years in group 1. Primary analysis occurred after the 100th group 1 patient reached 5 years follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the PROSPECT pathway were analysed. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000810011). FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2011, and May 6, 2019, 443 patients with breast cancer underwent MRI. Median age was 63·0 years. MRI detected 61 malignant occult lesions separate from the index cancer in 48 patients (11%). Of 201 group 1 patients who had BCS without radiotherapy, the IIRR at 5 years was 1·0% (upper 95% CI 5·4%). In group 1, one local recurrence occurred at 4·5 years and a second at 7·5 years. In group 2, nine patients had mastectomy (2% of total cohort), and the 5-year IIRR was 1·7% (upper 95% CI 6·1%). The only distant metastasis in the entire cohort was genetically distinct from the index cancer. The PROSPECT pathway increased QALYs by 0·019 (95% CI 0·008-0·029) and saved AU$1980 (95% CI 1396-2528) or £953 (672-1216) per patient. INTERPRETATION: PROSPECT suggests that women with unifocal breast cancer on MRI and favourable pathology can safely omit radiotherapy. FUNDING: Breast Cancer Trials, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Council Victoria, the Royal Melbourne Hospital Foundation, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Omission of axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer patients with three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes.

PURPOSE: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Z11) trial assessed the benefit of axillary dissection (ALND) for breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases; however, Z11 excluded patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. We analyzed trends in ALND omission in patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. METHODS: Women with ≥ 3 positive SLNs who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy between 2018 and 2020 in the National Cancer Database were included using SLN codes initiated in 2018. Patients with stage IV disease, recurrent breast cancer, and who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. A multivariable logistic regression model was utilized to determine the proportion who received ALND and factors associated with ALND omission. A subgroup analysis was performed among patients who met the remainder of the Z11 inclusion criteria (BCS, T1/T2 breast cancer). RESULTS: We identified 3654 patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs. ALND was omitted in 37% of patients, and omission significantly increased from 2018 to 2020 (29% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). Older age, lower grade tumors, no radiation, non-academic facility, BCS, more SLNs examined and fewer positive SLNs were significantly associated with ALND omission. 942 patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs met the remainder of the Z11 inclusion criteria. ALND was omitted in 49% of these patients, and omission increased from 2018 to 2020 (44% vs. 49%, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs do not undergo ALND; omission of ALND increased from 2018 to 2020. Studies assessing oncologic outcomes of patients with ≥ 3 positive SLNs who do and do not receive ALND are required.

Comparison of long-term oncological outcomes after central lumpectomy versus nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery for centrally located breast cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

PURPOSE: To compare the oncological safety of nipple-sparing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus central lumpectomy for centrally located breast cancer (CLBC). METHODS: Patients who underwent BCS for CLBC at Asan Medical Center from 2007 to 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The oncological outcomes of nipple-sparing BCS (NS-BCS) and central lumpectomy were compared using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses and compared again after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: The study included 306 patients who underwent NS-BCS and 106 patients who underwent central lumpectomy (median follow-up: 111 months). On multivariate analysis, central lumpectomy had a lower risk of local recurrence compared to NS-BCS, albeit without statistical significance (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.24; p = 0.077). There was no significant difference in the risk of death (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.68, p = 0.12). After PSM, each group had 106 patients. The 5-year and 10-year local recurrence-free survival rates were 94.2% and 92.9% for NS-BCS, and 99.1% and 99.1% for central lumpectomy, respectively (p = 0.031). There were no significant differences in overall survival, regional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival. Fifteen patients (4.9%) who underwent NS-BCS had ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), of which 40% were in the nipple-areolar complex and previous surgical sites. One patient (0.9%) who underwent central lumpectomy experienced an IBTR in a different quadrant. CONCLUSION: NS-BCS showed more local recurrence than central lumpectomy. When deciding whether to spare the nipple during BCS in CLBC, patients should be sufficiently informed about the risk of IBTR.

Comparison of long-term oncologic outcomes of central lumpectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer: propensity score matching analysis.

PURPOSE: Central lumpectomy (CL) is a breast-conserving surgical (BCS) technique that involves excision of the nipple-areolar complex with breast tumor in centrally located breast cancers. We aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of CL in comparison with conventional BCS (cBCS). METHODS: Patient records who underwent BCS with clear resection margins for invasive breast cancer between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Of the total 6,533 patients, 106 (1.6%) underwent CL. Median follow-up duration was 73.4 months. 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: The CL group showed a significantly higher ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate than the cBCS group (10-year IBTR rate: 5.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.004), even after adjusting for other variables (hazard ratio (HR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-6.60, p = 0.048). However, there were no significant differences observed in regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall survival rates between the two groups. Both PSM and IPTW analyses showed significantly higher IBTR in the CL group (PSM HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.94-11.36; p = 0.048 and IPTW HR, 4.66; 95%CI, 1.85-11.77; p < 0.001). Lastly, when analyzing 2,213 patients whose tumors were located within 3 cm of the nipple, the CL group showed a significantly higher IBTR than the cBCS group before and after PSM. CONCLUSION: CL was associated with a higher rate of IBTR compared to cBCS, while other survival outcomes were comparable. For centrally located tumors, CL may be considered for patients preferring breast preservation. However, higher risk for IBTR should be informed and careful surveillance may be necessary during the early post-operative follow-up periods.

The effects of contemporary treatment of DCIS on the risk of developing an ipsilateral invasive Breast cancer (iIBC) in the Dutch population.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of contemporary treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on the risk of developing an ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) in the Dutch female population. METHODS: Clinical data was obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), a nationwide registry of all primary malignancies in the Netherlands integrated with the data from PALGA, the Dutch nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands, on all women in the Netherlands treated for primary DCIS from 2005 to 2015, resulting in a population-based cohort of 14.419 women. Cumulative iIBC incidence was assessed and associations of DCIS treatment type with subsequent iIBC risk were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Ten years after DCIS diagnosis, the cumulative incidence of iIBC was 3.1% (95% CI: 2.6-3.5%) in patients treated by breast conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiotherapy (RT), 7.1% (95% CI: 5.5-9.1) in patients treated by BCS alone, and 1.6% (95% CI: 1.3-2.1) in patients treated by mastectomy. BCS was associated with a significantly higher risk for iIBC compared to BCS + RT during the first 5 years after treatment (HR 2.80, 95% CI: 1.91-4.10%). After 5 years of follow-up, the iIBC risk declined in the BCS alone group but remained higher than the iIBC risk in the BCS + RT group (HR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.15-2.61). CONCLUSIONS: Although absolute risks of iIBC were low in patients treated for DCIS with either BCS or BCS + RT, risks remained higher in the BCS alone group compared to patients treated with BCS + RT for at least 10 years after DCIS diagnosis.

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.

An exploratory clinical trial of preoperative non-invasive localization before breast-conserving surgery using augmented reality technology.

PURPOSE: This single-center, randomized, prospective, exploratory clinical trial was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of an augmented reality (AR)-based breast cancer localization imaging solution for patients with breast cancer. METHODS: This clinical trial enrolled 20 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between the ages of 19 and 80, had a single lesion with a diameter ≥ 5 mm but ≤ 30 mm, had no metastases to other organs, and had not received prior chemotherapy. All patients underwent mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment. Patients were randomly assigned to ultrasound-guided skin marking localization (USL) and AR-based localization (ARL) groups (n = 10 in each group). Statistical comparisons between USL and ARL groups were made based on demographics, radiologic features, pathological outcomes, and surgical outcomes using chi-square and Student t-tests. RESULTS: Two surgeons performed breast-conserving surgery on 20 patients. Histopathologic evaluation of all patients confirmed negative margins. Two independent pathologists evaluated the marginal distances, and there were no intergroup differences in the readers' estimates (R1, 6.20 ± 4.37 vs. 5.04 ± 3.47, P = 0.519; R2, 5.10 ± 4.31 vs. 4.10 ± 2.38, P = 0.970) or the readers' average values (5.65 ± 4.19 vs. 4.57 ± 2.84, P = 0.509). In comparing the tumor plane area ratio, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of either reader's mean values (R1, 15.90 ± 9.52 vs. 19.38 ± 14.05, P = 0.525; R2, 15.32 ± 9.48 vs. 20.83 ± 12.85, P = 0.290) or the overall mean values of two readers combined (15.56 ± 9.11 vs. 20.09 ± 13.38, P = 0.388). Convenience, safety, satisfaction, and reusability were all superior in the AR localization group (P < 0.001) based on the two surgeons' responses. CONCLUSION: AR localization is an acceptable alternative to ultrasound-guided skin marking with no significant differences in surgical outcomes.

Pre-surgical cryoablation in ≤ 2 cm ER + /HER2-tumors. Prognostic factors for the presence of residual invasive carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is the standard approach for small low-risk tumors. If the efficacy of cryoablation is demonstrated, it could provide a minimally invasive alternative to surgery. PURPOSE: To determine the success of ultrasound-guided cryoablation in achieving the absence of Residual Invasive Cancer (RIC) for patients with ER + /HER2- tumors ≤ 2cm and sonographically negative axillary nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was carried out from April 2021 to June 2023, and involved 60 preoperative cryoablation procedures on ultrasound-visible, node-negative (cN0) infiltrating ductal carcinomas (IDC). Standard diagnostic imaging included mammography and tomosynthesis, supplemented by ultrasound-guided biopsy. MRI was performed in patients with associated intraductal carcinoma (DCIS) and an invasive component on core needle biopsy (18 out of 22 cases). All tumors were tagged with ferromagnetic seeds. A triple-phase protocol (freezing-thawing-freezing) with Argon was used, with an average procedure duration of 40 min. A logistic regression model was applied to determine significant correlation between RIC and the study variables. RESULTS: Fifty-nine women (mean age 63 ± 8 years) with sixty low-risk unifocal IDC underwent cryoablation prior to surgery. Pathological examination of lumpectomy specimens post-cryoablation revealed RIC in only one of 38 patients with pure IDC and in 4 of 22 mixed IDC/DCIS cases. All treated tumors had clear surgical margins, with no significant procedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation was effective in eradicating 97% of pure infiltrating ER + /HER2-tumors ≤ 2cm, demonstrating its potential as a surgical alternative in selected patients.

Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: Does it result in more breast-conserving surgery?

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced endocrine positive tumors who will not benefit from chemotherapy can be treated by either primary surgery or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET). How often does NET result in breast-conserving surgery (BCS)? METHODS: We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase, to identify articles on surgical treatment after NET. RESULTS: In 19 studies the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was reported after NET; an overall pCR rate of 1% was found. Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), the BCS rate was significantly higher after NET (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.69; P < 0.00001). The surgical conversion rate was reported in eight studies [4-75.9%], with a mean of 30.2%. CONCLUSION: This review found that one out of three patients becomes eligible for BCS after treatment with NET.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lumpectomy With and Without Defect Closure.

BACKGROUND: The effect of lumpectomy defect repair (a level 1 oncoplastic technique) on patient-reported breast satisfaction among patients undergoing lumpectomy has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumpectomy at our institution between 2018 and 2020 with or without repair of their lumpectomy defect during index operation, comprised our study population. The BREAST-Q quality-of-life questionnaire was administered preoperatively, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Satisfaction and quality-of-life domains were compared between those who did and did not have closure of their lumpectomy defect, and compared with surgeon-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 487 patients met eligibility criteria, 206 (42%) had their partial mastectomy defect repaired by glandular displacement. Median breast volume, as calculated from the mammogram, was smaller in patients undergoing defect closure (826 cm3 vs. 895 cm3, p = 0.006). There were no statistically significant differences in satisfaction with breasts (SABTR), physical well-being of the chest (PWB-CHEST), or psychosocial well-being (PsychWB) scores between the two cohorts at any time point. While patients undergoing defect closure had significantly higher sexual well-being (SexWB) scores compared with no closure (66 vs. 59, p = 0.021), there were no predictors of improvement in SexWB scores over time on multivariable analysis. Patients' self-reported scores positively correlated with physician-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a larger lumpectomy-to-breast volume ratio among patients undergoing defect repair, satisfaction was equivalent among those whose defects were or were not repaired at 2 years postsurgery. Defect repair was associated with clinically relevant improvement in patient-reported sexual well-being.

Nationwide Analysis of Locoregional Management for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Males: An NCDB Analysis of the Surgical Approach to DCIS in Males.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the optimal locoregional approach for males with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study examined trends in management and survival for males with DCIS. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for males with a diagnosis of DCIS from 2006 to 2017. Patients were categorized by locoregional management. Continuous variables were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and categorical variables by chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to evaluate for predictors of patients receiving partial mastectomy (PM) with radiation. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2017, 711 males with DCIS were identified. Most received mastectomy alone (57.1%). No change was observed in management approach from 2006 to 2017. Patients who underwent mastectomy alone were mostly hormone-positive (95.9% were estrogen-positive, 90.9% were progesterone-positive), although this cohort was least likely to receive hormone therapy (17.2%). Among those who underwent PM with radiation, only 61% of those who were hormone-positive received hormone therapy. Univariable analysis demonstrated that those of black race had lower odds of receiving PM with radiation (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.84), which persisted in the multivariable analysis with control for age and tumor size (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.67). Overall survival did not differ significantly between the four treatment methods (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The management approach to male DCIS did not change from 2006 to 2017. Survival did not differ between treatment methods. Demographic and clinicopathologic features, including race, may influence locoregional treatments received, and further studies are needed to further understand this.

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Updated Outcomes from a Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, data have supported the use of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) for low-risk patients after breast-conserving surgery, with techniques allowing for completion of treatment in 1-3 weeks. Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) is an alternative to PBI. Our institution had used low-energy photon IORT (TARGIT) for more than a decade. The initial results demonstrated a 2% local recurrence rate with a short follow-up period of 2 years. This report presents updated outcomes during with 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A review of an institutional review board (IRB)-approved institutional registry was performed. The review identified 215 patients with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0-IIA) who received IORT. At the time of surgery, IORT was delivered with 20 Gy in a single fraction, with 5.1% (n = 11) of patients receiving additional whole-breast irradiation (WBI). RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 71 years (range, 49-98 years), and the median follow-up was 5.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.2-7.0 years). Of the 215 patients, 2.8% (n = 6) had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 90.7% (n = 195) had T1 disease, and 6.5% (n = 14) had T2 disease. Endocrine therapy was prescribed for 79% and chemotherapy for 1.4% of the patients. The 5-year rates were 5.3% for local recurrence, 6.4% for locoregional recurrence, and 2.7% for distant metastases. At 5 years, 93% of the patients were alive. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year outcomes with TARGIT IORT demonstrated high rates of local recurrence, exceeding those seen with alternative modern approaches. The local recurrence outcomes with IORT are more consistent with studies omitting radiation following breast-conserving surgery, using endocrine therapy alone. Consistent with current guidelines and previous data, TARGIT IORT should not be used as monotherapy outside prospective clinical trials.

A Prospective Study of Sentinel Node Biopsy Omission in Women Age ≥ 65 Years with ER+ Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend omitting SNB in older patients with favorable invasive breast cancer. However, there is a lack of prospective data specifically addressing this issue. This study evaluates recurrence and survival in estrogen receptor-positive/Her2- (ER+) breast cancer patients, aged ≥ 65 years who have breast-conserving surgery (BCS) without SNB. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study at a single institution where 125 patients aged ≥ 65 years with clinical T1-2N0 ER+ invasive breast cancer undergoing BCS were enrolled. Patients were treated with BCS without SNB. Primary outcome measure was axillary recurrence. Secondary outcome measures include recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: From January 2016 to July 2022, 125 patients were enrolled with median follow-up of 36.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.0-38.0]. Median age was 77.0 years (range 65-93). Median tumor size was 1 cm (range 0.1-5.0). Most tumors were ductal (95/124, 77.0%), intermediate grade (60/116, 51.7%), and PR-positive (117/123, 91.7%). Radiation therapy was performed in 37 of 125 (29.6%). Only 60 of 125 (48.0%) who were recommended hormonal therapy were compliant at 2 years. Chemotherapy was administered to six of 125 (4.8%) patients. There were two of 125 (1.6%) axillary recurrences. Estimated 3-years rates of regional RFS, DFS, and OS were 98.2%, 91.2%, and 94.8%, respectively. Univariate Cox regression identified hormonal therapy noncompliance to be significantly associated with recurrence (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Axillary recurrence rates were extremely low in this cohort. These results provide prospective data to support omission of SNB in this patient population TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02564848.

Patient Preference for Surgical Methods for Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy has been the standard surgical treatment for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Recently, there has been growing interest in repeat breast-conserving surgery (rBCS) for IBTR among breast surgeons; however, there is currently little information regarding patient preferences for surgical procedure for IBTR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate preference for surgical procedure (mastectomy vs. rBCS) among breast cancer patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR. METHODS: Overall, 100 breast cancer patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR were asked about their preferred surgical methods for IBTR and the reason. The association of patient preference and the reasons related to various clinical and pathological factors were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 100 respondents, only 11 patients (11%) preferred rBCS. Patients who had undergone rBCS and radiotherapy for IBTR were significantly more likely to prefer to undergo rBCS than other groups (p = 0.030). The most frequent reason for choosing rBCS was the patient's desire to minimize breast deformity and surgical wounds. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that there is a low rate of patients who opt to undergo rBCS among patients who had undergone salvage surgery for IBTR. Discrepancies in perceptions regarding the surgical procedure for IBTR between patients and their surgeons may exist.

Clinicopathological Predictors of Positive Resection Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is associated with risk of positive resection margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and subsequent reoperation. Prior reports grossly underestimate the risk of margin positivity with IBC containing a DCIS component (IBC + DCIS) due to patient-level rather than margin-level analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to delineate the relative risk of IBC + DCIS compared with pure IBC (without a DCIS component) on margin positivity through detailed margin-level interrogation. METHODS: A single institution, retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted in which pathology databases were evaluated to identify patients who underwent BCS over 5 years (2014-2019). Margin-level interrogation included granular detail into the extent, pathological subtype and grade of disease at each resection margin. Predictors of a positive margin were computed using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Clinicopathological details were examined from 5454 margins from 909 women. The relative risk of a positive margin with IBC + DCIS versus pure IBC was 8.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.64-11.56) applying UK Association of Breast Surgery guidelines, and 8.44 (95% CI 6.57-10.84) applying the Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology guidelines. Independent predictors of margin positivity included younger patient age (0.033, 95% CI 0.006-0.060), lower specimen weight (0.045, 95% CI 0.020-0.069), multifocality (0.256, 95% CI 0.137-0.376), lymphovascular invasion (0.138, 95% CI 0.068-0.208) and comedonecrosis (0.113, 95% CI 0.040-0.185). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with pure IBC, the relative risk of a positive margin with IBC + DCIS is approximately ninefold, significantly higher than prior estimates. This margin-level methodology is believed to represent the impact of DCIS more accurately on margin positivity in IBC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Radar Localisation Versus Wire Localisation for Wide Local Excision of Non-palpable Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Wire localisation (WL) is the "gold standard" localisation technique for wide local excision (WLE) of non-palpable breast lesions but has disadvantages that have led to the development of wireless techniques. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of radar localisation (RL) to WL. METHODS: This was a single-institution study of 110 prospective patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing WLE using RL with the SCOUT® Surgical Guidance System (2021-2023) compared with a cohort of 110 patients using WL. Margin status, re-excision rates, and surgery delays associated with preoperative localisation were compared. Costs from a third-party payer perspective in Australian dollars (AUD$) calculated by using microcosting, break-even point, and cost-utility analyses. RESULTS: A total of 110 WLEs using RL cost a total of AUD$402,281, in addition to the device cost of AUD$77,150. The average additional cost of a surgery delay was AUD$2318. Use of RL reduced the surgery delay rate by 10% (p = 0.029), preventing 11 delays with cost savings of AUD$25,496. No differences were identified in positive margin rates (RL: 11.8% vs. WL: 17.3%, p = 0.25) or re-excision rates (RL: 14.5% vs. WL: 21.8%, p = 0.221). In total, 290 RL cases are needed to break even. The cost of WLE using RL was greater than WL by AUD$567. There was a greater clinical benefit of 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-utility ratio of AUD$493 per QALY favouring RL. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of RL was a more cost-effective intervention than WL. Close to 300 RL cases are likely needed to be performed to recover costs of the medical device. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12624000068561.

Reducing re-excision rates in breast conserving surgery with Margin Probe: systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Different intraoperative techniques with varying levels of evidence are available to decrease positive surgical margins during breast conserving surgery. The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of the MarginProbe® device as an intraoperative adjunct tool in reducing positive surgical margins, and subsequently exploring the effect on patient re-excision rates. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review of the available medical literature was conducted from 2007 to March 2022. A literature search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase by two independent reviewers reviwers was performed to identify eligible articles looking at the primary outcome of percentage reduction in patient re-excision rates using MarginProbe®. Secondary outcomes analysed were comparison of tissue volume removed, absolute and relative reduction in re-excision rate, cosmetic outcome, as well as MarginProbe® sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: A total of 12 full text articles were identified. An independent samples t-test using a total of 2680 patients found a 54.68 per cent reduction in re-excision rate with the use of MarginProbe®, which was statistically significant with a large effect size (P < 0.001; d = 1.826). Secondary outcomes showed a relatively higher sensitivity of the MarginProbe® device, at the expense of decreased specificity, and no significant impact on cosmesis and volume of breast tissue excised. CONCLUSION: MarginProbe® is an effective intraoperative adjunct in breast-conservation surgery that reduces patient re-excision rates, with no adverse effects relating to breast cosmesis or increase in volume of excised tissue.

Understanding decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery as an alternative to a mastectomy in early breast cancer: UK ANTHEM qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery may allow women with early breast cancer to avoid a mastectomy, but many women undergo more extensive surgery, even when breast-conserving options are offered. The aim of the ANTHEM qualitative study was to explore factors influencing women's surgical decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of women who had received either oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction to explore their rationale for procedure choice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18238549. RESULTS: A total of 27 women from 12 centres were interviewed. Out of these, 12 had chosen oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and 15 had chosen a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. Overwhelmingly, women's decisions were guided by their surgical teams. Decision-making for and against oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was influenced by three key inter-related factors: perceptions of oncological safety; the importance of maintaining/restoring femininity and body image; and practical issues. Oncological safety was paramount. Women who reported feeling reassured that oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery was oncologically safe were happy to choose this option. Those who were not reassured were more likely to opt for a mastectomy, as a perceived 'safer' option. Most women wished to maintain/restore femininity, with the offer of immediate breast reconstruction essential to make a mastectomy an acceptable option. Practical issues such as the perceived magnitude of the surgery were a lesser concern. CONCLUSION: Decision-making is complex and heavily influenced by the surgical team. High-quality, accurate information about surgical options, including appropriate reassurance about the short- and long-term oncological safety of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery is vital if women are to make fully informed decisions.

Oncoplastic reconstruction with breast-conserving treatment versus breast-conserving treatment alone in the elderly.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Oncoplastic reconstruction (IOR) performed in conjunction with breast conserving therapy (BCT) has been found to improve psychosocial well-being, reduce hospitalization time, and reduce cost burden. Few studies have looked at the safety profile, complication rates, and overall outcomes in patients ages 65 years and older undergoing IOR versus BCT alone. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional, single-institution medical record review was conducted of women diagnosed with breast cancer age 65 years or older who received IOR or BCT alone. Demographics, clinical data, and major and minor complication profiles were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included. Of these, 126 received IOR, while 184 received BCT alone. Age >85 was found to have a significantly higher risk for any complication and was an independent predictor for experiencing any complication (OR: 8.5, p = 0.015; OR: 1.06, p = 0.029). Major complication rates were significantly higher in the BCT cohort (16.9% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: IOR in the elderly is a safe option and was not found to be a predictor of experiencing higher complications. Patients who are 85 years and older had a higher risk of complications, and future studies may explore risk-benefit in that particular cohort of patients in which BCT is planned.

Haemoblock hemostatic substance in reducing seroma formation post axillary lymph node dissection following breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast cancer management, necessitates a nuanced understanding of complications that may impede treatment progression. This study scrutinize the impact of Haemoblock hemostatic solution, evaluation it's potential in reducing seroma complication by controlling lymph flow and obliterating axillary dead space. METHOD: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial was conducted with 58 patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and ALND, stratified into two groups: Group A (ALND + Haemoblock, n = 29) and Group B (ALND + placebo, n = 29). Postoperative drainage charts were monitored, with the primary endpoint being the time to drain removal, Additionally, patients were observed for surgical site infection (SSI). RESULTS: Group A exhibited a marginally higher mean total drain output (398 +/- 205 vs. 326 +/- 198) compared to Group B, this difference did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.176). Equally, the mean time to drain removal demonstrated no discernible distinction between the two groups (6 +/- 3.0 vs. 6 +/- 3.0, Group A vs. Group B, p = 0.526). During follow up, nine patients in Group A required seroma aspiration (mean aspiration 31 +/- 73) as compared to Group B, 6 patients required aspiration (mean aspiration 12 +/- 36), p = 0.222). No notable disparity in SSI rates between the groups was identified. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the administration of Haemoblock did not manifest a discernible effect in mitigating seroma production, hastening drain removal, or influencing SSI rates following ALND. The study underscores the intricate and multifactorial nature of seroma formation, suggesting avenues for future research to explore combined interventions and protracted follow-up periods for a more comprehensive understanding.