Multidisciplinary Management of the Axilla in Patients with cT1-T2 N0 Breast Cancer Undergoing Primary Mastectomy: Results from a Prospective Single-Institution Series.

BACKGROUND: The after mapping of the axilla: radiotherapy or surgery (AMAROS) trial concluded that for patients with cT1-2 N0 breast cancer and one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), axillary radiotherapy (AxRT) provides equivalent locoregional control and a lower incidence of lymphedema compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The study prospectively assessed how often ALND could be replaced by AxRT in a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing mastectomy for cT1-2 N0 breast cancer. METHODS: In November 2015, our multidisciplinary group agreed to omit routine intraoperative SLN evaluation for cT1-2 N0 patients undergoing upfront mastectomy and potentially eligible for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT), including those 60 years of age or younger and those older than 60 years with high-risk features. Patients with one or two positive SLNs on final pathology were reviewed to determine whether PMRT including the full axilla was an appropriate alternative to ALND. RESULTS: From November 2015 to December 2016, 154 patients met the study criteria, and 114 (74%) formed the final study cohort. Intraoperative SLN evaluation was omitted for 76 patients (67%). Of these patients, 20 (26%) had one or two positive SLNs, and 14 of these patients received PMRT + AxRT as an alternative to ALND. Three patients returned for ALND, and three patients were observed. On univariate analysis, tumor size, LVI, number of positive lymph nodes, and receipt of chemotherapy were associated with receipt of PMRT. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of patients with one or two positive SLNs, ALND was avoided in favor of PMRT + AxRT. With appropriate multidisciplinary strategies, intraoperative evaluation of the SLN and immediate ALND can be avoided for patients meeting the AMAROS criteria and eligible for PMRT.

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

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

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

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

Measuring opportunities to improve timeliness of breast cancer care at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center.

The authors sought to measure the timeliness of care for patients with breast cancer at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center throughout the treatment continuum, and to identify sources of variation that may serve as targets for improving care delivery. This report describes the methods that were developed to measure and analyze baseline performance.

Implementation of a Breast/Reconstruction Surgery Coordinator to Reduce Preoperative Delays for Patients Undergoing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (MIR) requires coordination between breast and reconstructive surgical teams, leading to increased preoperative delays that may adversely impact patient outcomes and satisfaction. Our cancer center established a target of 28 days from initial consultation with the breast surgeon to MIR. We sought to determine if a centralized breast/reconstructive surgical coordinator (BRC) could reduce care delays. METHODS: A 60-day pilot to evaluate the impact of a BRC on timeliness of care was initiated at our cancer center. All reconstructive surgery candidates were referred to the BRC, who had access to surgical clinic and operating room schedules. The BRC worked with both surgical services to identify the earliest surgery dates and facilitated operative bookings. The median time to MIR and the proportion of MIR cases that met the time-to-treatment goal was determined. These results were compared with a baseline cohort of patients undergoing MIR during the same time period (January to March) in 2013 and 2014. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were referred to the BRC (62% cancer, 21% neoadjuvant, 17% prophylactic) during the pilot period. Focusing exclusively on patients with a cancer diagnosis, an 18.5% increase in the percentage of cases meeting the target (P = .04) and a 7-day reduction to MIR (P = .02) were observed. CONCLUSION: A significant reduction in time to MIR was achieved through the implementation of the BRC. Further research is warranted to validate these findings and assess the impact the BRC has on operational efficiency and workflows.

Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: a significant improvement in operative efficiency.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the length of operative time and its effect on surgeon productivity with the use of intraoperative digital specimen mammography (IDSM) compared to standard specimen mammography (SSM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 344 consecutive patients from a single breast surgeon from 2003 to 2010. Operative time was compared between procedures using SSM vs IDSM. Surgeon productivity was evaluated by the number of wire-localized excisions performed prior to and after implementation of IDSM. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients underwent SSM and 114 underwent IDSM. Average operative time in the SSM group was 78 minutes vs 68 minutes in the IDSM group (P < .0001). In the first 2 years after implementation of IDSM, the number of wire-localized excisions performed increased by 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Operative times were significantly shorter with the use of IDSM vs SSM, and this was associated with an increase in surgeon productivity.