Genomic Landscape of Adenocarcinomas Across the Gastroesophageal Junction: Moving on from the Siewert Classification.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the Siewert classification of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas correlates with genomic profiles. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: Current staging and treatment guidelines recommend that tumors with an epicenter less than 2 cm into the gastric cardia be treated as esophageal cancers, while tumors with epicenter greater than 2 cm into the cardia be staged and treated as gastric cancers. To date, however, few studies have compared the genomic profiles of the 3 Siewert classification groups to validate this distinction. METHODS: Using targeted tumor sequencing data on patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction previously treated with surgery at our institution, we compared genomic features across Siewert classification groups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included: 121 had Siewert type I, 170 type II, and 59 type III. Comparisons by Siewert location revealed that Siewert type I and II were primarily characterized as the chromosomal instability (CIN) molecular subtype and displayed Barrett's metaplasia and p53 and cell cycle pathway dysregulation. Siewert type III tumors, by contrast, were more heterogeneous, including higher proportions of microsatellite instability (MSI) and genomically stable (GS) tumors and more frequently displayed ARID1A and somatic CDH1 alterations, signet ring cell features, and poor differentiation. Overall, Siewert type I and II tumors demonstrated greater genomic overlap with lower esophageal tumors, while Siewert type III tumors shared genomic features with gastric tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support recent updates in treatment and staging guidelines. Ultimately, however, molecular rather than anatomic classification may prove more valuable in determining staging, treatment, and prognosis.

Incidence and management of esophageal cancer recurrence to regional lymph nodes after curative esophagectomy.

Up to 50% of patients treated with curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer will develop recurrence, contributing to the dismal survival associated with this disease. Regional recurrence may represent disease that is not yet widely metastatic and may therefore be amenable to more-aggressive treatment. We sought to assess all patients treated with curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer who developed regional recurrence. We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma at a single institution from January 2000 to August 2019. In total, 1626 patients were included in the study cohort. As of June 2022, 595 patients had disease recurrence, which was distant or systemic in 435 patients (27%), regional in 125 (7.7%) and local in 35 (2.2%). On multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant chemoradiation with a total radiation dose <45 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 3.5 [95% CI, 1.7-7.3]; P = .001), pathologic node-positive disease (HR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.3-3.0]; P = .003) and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.0-2.5]; P = .049) were predictors of isolated nodal recurrence, whereas increasing age (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]; P = .001) and increasing number of excised lymph nodes (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.95-1.00]; P = .021) were independently associated with decreased risk of regional recurrence. Patients treated with a combination of local and systemic therapies had better survival outcomes than patients treated with systemic therapy alone (P < .001). In patients with recurrence of esophageal cancer limited to regional lymph nodes, salvage treatment may be possible. Higher radiation doses and more-extensive lymphadenectomy may reduce the risk of regional recurrence.

Distinct Differences in Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Adenocarcinoma in 2194 Patients: In Memory of Rebecca A. Carr, February 24, 1988-January 19, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and gastric cancer (GC) and identify clinicopathological and oncological differences. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: GEJ cancer and GC are frequently studied together. Although the treatment approach for each often differs, clinico-pathological and oncological differences between the 2 have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with GEJ cancer or GC who underwent R0 resection at our center between January 2000 and December 2016. Clinicopathological characteristics, disease-specific survival (DSS), and site of first recurrence were compared. RESULTS: In total, 2194 patients were analyzed: 1060 (48.3%) with GEJ cancer and 1134 (51.7%) with GC. Patients with GEJ cancer were younger (64 vs 66 years; P < 0.001), more often received neoadjuvant treatment (70.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001), and had lower pathological T and N status. Five-year DSS was 62.2% in patients with GEJ cancer and 74.6% in patients with GC ( P < 0.001). After adjustment for clinicopathological factors, DSS remained worse in patients with GEJ cancer (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.26; P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of recurrence was approximately 10% higher in patients with GEJ cancer ( P < 0.001). The site of first recurrence was more likely to be hematogenous in patients with GEJ cancer (60.1% vs 31.4%; P < 0.001) and peritoneal in patients with GC (52.9% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GEJ adenocarcinoma is more aggressive, with a higher incidence of recurrence and worse DSS, compared with gastric adenocarcinoma. Distinct differences between GEJ cancer and GC, especially in patterns of recurrence, may affect evaluation of optimal treatment strategies.

Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis in T1b Gastric Cancer: An International Comprehensive Analysis from the Global Gastric Group (G3) Alliance.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to define criteria associated with low lymph node metastasis risk in patients with submucosal (pT1b) gastric cancer from 3 Western and 3 Eastern countries. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Accurate prediction of lymph node metastasis risk is essential when determining the need for gastrectomy with lymph node dissection following endoscopic resection. Under present guidelines, endoscopic resection is considered definitive treatment if submucosal invasion is only superficial, but this is not routinely assessed. METHODS: Lymph node metastasis rates were determined for patient groups defined according to tumor pathological characteristics. Clinicopathological predictors of lymph node metastasis were determined by multivariable logistic regression and used to develop a nomogram in a randomly selected subset that was validated in the remainder. Overall survival was compared between Eastern and Western countries. RESULTS: Lymph node metastasis was found in 701 of 3166 (22.1%) Eastern and 153 of 560 (27.3%) Western patients. Independent predictors of lymph node metastasis were female sex, tumor size, distal stomach location, lymphovascular invasion, and moderate or poor differentiation. Patients fulfilling the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline criteria, excluding the requirement that invasion not extend beyond the superficial submucosa, had a lymph node metastasis rate of 8.9% (53/594). Excluding moderately differentiated tumors lowered the rate to 3.4% (10/296). The nomogram's area under the curve was 0.690. Regardless of lymph node status, overall survival was better in Eastern patients. CONCLUSIONS: The lymph node metastasis rate was lowest in patients with well differentiated tumors that were ≤3 cm and lacked lymphovascular invasion. These criteria may be useful in decisions regarding endoscopic resection as definitive treatment for pT1b gastric cancer.

Survival of Locally Advanced MSI-high Gastric Cancer Patients Treated With Perioperative Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high gastric cancer. BACKGROUND: Although MSI-high gastric cancer is associated with a superior prognosis, recent studies question the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in this population. METHODS: Locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients who either underwent surgery alone or also received neoadjuvant, perioperative, or adjuvant chemotherapy between 2000 and 2018 were eligible. MSI status, determined by next-generation sequencing or mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, was determined in 535 patients. Associations among MSI status, chemotherapy administration, overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival were assessed. RESULTS: In 535 patients, 82 (15.3%) had an MSI-high tumor and ∼20% better OS, disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Grade 1 (90%-100%) pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was found in 0 of 40 (0%) MSI-high tumors versus 43 of 274 (16%) MSS. In the MSI-high group, the 3-year OS rate was 79% with chemotherapy versus 88% with surgery alone ( P =0.48). In the MSS group, this was 61% versus 59%, respectively ( P =0.96). After multivariable interaction analyses, patients with MSI-high tumors had superior survival compared with patients with MSS tumors whether given chemotherapy (hazard ratio=0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.99) or treated with surgery alone (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: MSI-high locally advanced gastric cancer was associated with superior survival compared with MSS overall, despite worse pathological chemotherapy response. In patients with MSI-high gastric cancer who received chemotherapy, the survival rate was ∼9% worse compared with surgery alone, but chemotherapy was not significantly associated with survival.

Factors associated with detection of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer on endoscopy in individuals with germline CDH1 mutations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Individuals with germline pathogenic CDH1 variants have a high risk of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. The sensitivity of EGD in detecting signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) in this population is low. We aimed to identify endoscopic findings and biopsy practices associated with detection of SRCC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included individuals with a germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic CDH1 variant undergoing at least 1 EGD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between January 1, 2006, and March 25, 2022. The primary outcome was detection of SRCC on EGD. Findings on gastrectomy were also assessed. The study included periods before and after implementation of the Cambridge protocol for endoscopic surveillance, allowing for assessment of a spectrum of biopsy practices. RESULTS: Ninety-eight CDH1 patients underwent at least 1 EGD at our institution. SRCC was detected in 20 (20%) individuals on EGD overall and in 50 (86%) of the 58 patients undergoing gastrectomy. Most SRCC foci were detected in the gastric cardia/fundus (EGD, 50%; gastrectomy, 62%) and body/transition zone (EGD, 60%; gastrectomy, 62%). Biopsy results of gastric pale mucosal areas were associated with detection of SRCC (P < .01). The total number of biopsy samples taken on EGD was associated with increased detection of SRCC (P = .01), with 43% detected when ≥40 samples were taken. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted biopsy sampling of gastric pale mucosal areas and increasing number of biopsy samples taken on EGD were associated with detection of SRCC. SRCC foci were mostly detected in the proximal stomach, supporting updated endoscopic surveillance guidelines. Further studies are needed to refine endoscopic protocols to improve SRCC detection in this high-risk population.

A Novel Microbiome Signature in Gastric Cancer: A Two Independent Cohort Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The microbiome is hypothesized to have a significant impact on cancer development. In gastric cancer (GC), Helicobacter pylori is an established class I carcinogen. However, additional organisms in the intratumoral microbiome play an important role in GC pathogenesis and progression. In this study, we characterize the full spectrum of the microbes present within GC and identify distinctions among molecular subtypes. METHODS: A microbiome bioinformatics pipeline that is generalizable across multiple next-generation sequencing platforms was developed. Microbial profiles for alpha diversity and enrichment were generated for 2 large, demographically distinct cohorts: (1) internal Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and (2) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohorts. A total of 520 GC samples were compared with select tumor-adjacent nonmalignant samples. Microbiome differences among the GC molecular subtypes were identified. RESULTS: Compared with nonmalignant samples, GC had significantly decreased microbial diversity in both MSKCC and TCGA cohorts ( P <0.05). Helicobacter , Lactobacillus , Streptococcus , Prevotella , and Bacteroides were significantly more enriched in GC samples when compared with nonmalignant tissue ( P <0.05). Microsatellite instability-high GC had distinct microbial enrichment compared with other GC molecular subtypes. CONCLUSION: Distinct patterns of microbial diversity and species enrichment were identified in patients with GC. Given the varied spectrum of disease progression and treatment response of GC, understanding unique microbial signatures will provide the landscape to explore key microbial targets for therapy.

Enhanced PAtient Clinical Streamlining (EPACS): Quality Initiative to Improve Healthcare for New Surgical Outpatient Visits.

PURPOSE: For patients who select a specialty hospital for cancer treatment, the wait time until the initial consultation leaves patients anxious and delays treatment. To improve quality of care, we implemented an enhanced patient clinical streamlining (EPACS) process that establishes an early connection and coordinates care before the first surgical outpatient visit at our specialty cancer center. METHODS: During a pre-visit EPACS phone call to new patients, an advanced practice provider (APP) collected medical history and ordered work-up tests or consultations if feasible. First visit cancellation rate, number of patients who started treatment, time to start of treatment, and satisfaction by the care team and patient were compared between patients treated with versus without EPACS. RESULTS: Among 5062 consecutive new patients, 720 (14%) received an EPACS call and 4342 did not (86%); work-up was ordered pre-visit in 34% and 16%, respectively. Fewer EPACS patients cancelled the first visit (4.6% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), more started treatment (55% vs. 50%, p = 0.037), and their time to treatment was shorter, but not significantly (median 17 vs. 19 days, p = 0.086). Patient interaction was considered to be improved by EPACS by 17 of 17 APPs and 14 of 16 surgeons, and outpatient clinic efficiency by 14 of 17 APPs and 13 of 16 surgeons. EPACS reduced anxiety and increased preparedness for the first visit in 29 of 31 patients. CONCLUSIONS: EPACS improved effectiveness, timeliness, and physician and patient satisfaction with health care at our cancer center.

Longitudinal Analysis of Quality-of-Life Recovery After Gastrectomy for Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with quality-of-life recovery after gastrectomy. METHODS: Patients anticipated to undergo gastric cancer resection were invited to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and STO22 surveys in the preoperative setting and at 0-1.5 months (early), > 1.5-6 months (intermediate), and > 6-18 months (late) following resection. Quality-of-life recovery was measured as paired differences between pre- and postoperative results. Multivariable linear regression identified factors associated with preoperative quality of life and degree of change following resection. RESULTS: Across 393 participants, response rates at the intermediate and late postoperative time points were 58% (n = 228) and 71% (n = 277), respectively. Relative to baseline, median global health scale decreased in the early (- 15.1 pts, p < 0.001) and intermediate (- 3.6 pts, p = 0.02) time points, but recovered by the late time point (+ 1.2 pts, p = 0.411). Relative to distal/subtotal gastrectomy, proximal/total gastrectomy was associated with worse recovery in both the early and late time points. Surgical complications were associated with worse early recovery. Patients who presented with locally advanced tumors (T3-T4) had lower preoperative quality-of-life scores, and more readily recovered to baseline after surgery. A minimally invasive approach was not associated with postoperative recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients recover to baseline within 1 year following major gastrectomy, and recovery is easier with more limited resections. Patients with locally advanced tumors tend to have poorer baseline quality of life, which may improve following resection.

Comparison of Long- and Short-term Outcomes in 845 Open and Minimally Invasive Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Few Western studies have evaluated the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to gastrectomy for gastric cancer. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between minimally invasive and open gastrectomies and between laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomies at a high-volume cancer center in the United States. METHODS: The study analyzed data for all patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma from January 2007 to June 2017. Postoperative complications and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared between surgical approaches. RESULTS: The median follow-up period for the 845 patients in this study was 38.5 months. The stage-stratified 5-year DSS did not differ significantly between open surgery (n = 534) and MIS (n = 311). The MIS approach resulted in significantly fewer complications, as confirmed by adjusted comparison (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; range, 0.49-1.00; p = 0.049). After adjustment, the two groups did not differ in terms of DSS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; range, 0.55-1.25; p = 0.362). The robotic operations (n = 190) had fewer conversions to open procedure (p = 0.010), a shorter operative time (212 vs 240 min; p < 0.001), more dissected nodes (27 vs 22; p < 0.001), fewer Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (5.8% vs 13.2%; p = 0.023), and a shorter postoperative stay (5 vs 6 days; p = 0.045) than the laparoscopic operations (n = 121). The DSS rate did not differ between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. CONCLUSION: The study findings demonstrated the long-term survival and oncologic equivalency of MIS gastrectomy and the open approach in a Western cohort, supporting the use of MIS at centers that have adequate experience with appropriately selected patients.

Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Clinical Stages 2 and 3 Gastric Cancer Patients: Analysis of Timing and Site of Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze timing and sites of recurrence for patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection is the standard treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer in the West, but limited information exists as to timing and patterns of recurrence in this setting. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 gastric cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by curative-intent resection between January 2000 and December 2015 were analyzed for 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) as well as timing and site of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 312 identified patients, 121 (38.8%) experienced recurrence during a median follow-up period of 46 months. The overall 5-year RFS rate was 58.9%, with RFS rates of 95.8% for ypT0N0, 81% for ypStage 1, 77.4% for ypStage 2, and 22.9% for ypStage 3. The first site of recurrence was peritoneal for 49.6%, distant (not peritoneal) for 45.5%, and locoregional for 11.6% of the patients. The majority of the recurrences (84.3%) occurred within 2 years. Multivariate analysis showed that ypT4 status was an independent predictor for recurrence within 1 year after surgery (odds ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.08; p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the recurrences for patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 gastric cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent curative resection occurred within 2 years. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic T stage was a useful risk predictor for early recurrence.

Association of Obesity with Worse Operative and Oncologic Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Gastric Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: How obesity has an impact on operative and oncologic outcomes for gastric cancer patients is unclear, and the influence of obesity on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been evaluated. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for primary gastric cancer between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. After stratification for NAC, operative morbidity, mortality, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared among three body mass index (BMI) categories: normal BMI (< 25 kg/m2), mild obesity (25-35 kg/m2), and severe obesity (≥ 35 kg/m2). RESULTS: During the study period, 984 patients underwent upfront surgery, and 484 patients received NAC. Tumor stage did not differ among the BMI groups. However, the rates of pathologic response to NAC were significantly lower for the patients with severe obesity (10% vs 40%; p < 0.001). Overall complications were more frequent among the obese patients (44.3% for obese vs 24.9% for normal BMI, p < 0.001). Intraabdominal infections were also more frequent in obese patients (13.9% for obese vs 4.7% for normal BMI, p = 0.001). In the upfront surgery cohort, according to the BMI, OS and DSS did not differ, whereas in the NAC cohort, severe obesity was independently associated with worse OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-3.48; p = 0.047] and disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR 2.08; 95% CI 1.07-4.05; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: For the gastric cancer patients undergoing curative gastrectomy, obesity was associated with significantly lower rates of pathologic response to NAC and more postoperative complications, as well as shorter OS and DSS for the patients receiving NAC.

Predicting malignancy in patients with adrenal tumors using 18 F-FDG-PET/CT SUVmax.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18 F-FDG-PET/CT) parameters may help distinguish malignant from benign adrenal tumors, but few have been externally validated or determined based on definitive pathological confirmation. We determined and validated a threshold for 18 F-FDG-PET/CT maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) in patients who underwent adrenalectomy for a nonfunctional tumor. METHODS: Database review identified patients with 18 F-FDG-PET/CT images available (training cohort), or only SUVmax values (validation cohort). Discriminative accuracy was assessed by area under the curve (AUC), and the optimal cutoff value estimated by maximally selected Wilcoxon rank statistics. RESULTS: Of identified patients (n = 171), 86 had adrenal metastases, 20 adrenal cortical carcinoma, and 27 adrenal cortical adenoma. In the training cohort (n = 96), SUVmax was significantly higher in malignant versus benign tumors (median 8.3 vs. 3.0, p < .001), with an AUC of 0.857. Tumor size did not differ. The optimal cutoff SUVmax was 4.6 (p < .01). In the validation cohort (n = 75), this cutoff had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity 55%. CONCLUSIONS: 18 F-FDG-PET/CT SUVmax was associated with malignancy. Validation indicated that SUVmax ≥ 4.6 was suggestive of malignancy, while lower values did not reliably predict benign tumor.

From Multiple Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Care Toward Hospital Variation of a Summary Measure.

OBJECTIVES: To improve quality in breast cancer care, large numbers of quality indicators are collected per hospital, but benchmarking remains complex. We aimed to assess the validity of indicators, develop a textbook outcome summary measure, and compare case-mix adjusted hospital performance. METHODS: From a nationwide population-based registry, all 79 690 nonmetastatic breast cancer patients surgically treated between 2011 and 2016 in 91 hospitals in The Netherlands were included. Twenty-one indicators were calculated and their construct validity tested by Spearman's rho. Between-hospital variation was expressed by interquartile range (IQR), and all valid indicators were included in the summary measure. Standardized scores (observed/expected based on case mix) were calculated as above (>100) or below (<100) expected. The textbook outcome was presented as a continuous and all-or-none score. RESULTS: The size of between-hospital variation varied between indicators. Sixteen (76%) of 21 quality indicators showed construct validity, and 13 were included in the summary measure after excluding redundant indicators that showed collinearity with others owing to strong construct validity. The median all-or-none textbook outcome score was 49% (IQR 42%-54%) before and 49% (IQR 48%-51%) after case-mix adjustment. From the total of 91 hospitals, 3 hospitals were positive (3%) and 9 (10%) were negative outliers. CONCLUSIONS: The textbook outcome summary measure showed discriminative ability when hospital performance was presented as an all-or-none score. Although indicator scores and outlier hospitals should always be interpreted cautiously, the summary measure presented here has the potential to improve Dutch breast cancer quality indicator efforts and could be implemented to further test its validity, feasibility, and usefulness.

Effect of Case-Mix and Random Variation on Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators and Their Rankability.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital comparisons to improve quality of care require valid and reliable quality indicators. We aimed to test the validity and reliability of 6 breast cancer indicators by quantifying the influence of case-mix and random variation. METHODS: The nationwide population-based database included 79 690 patients with breast cancer from 91 Dutch hospitals between 2011 and 2016. The indicator-scores calculated were: (1) irradical breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for invasive disease, (2) irradical BCS for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, (3) breast contour-preserving treatment, (4) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, (5) radiotherapy for locally advanced disease, and (6) surgery within 5 weeks from diagnosis. Case-mix and random variation adjustments were performed by multivariable fixed and random effect logistic regression models. Rankability quantified the between-hospital variation, representing unexplained differences that might be the result of the level of quality of care, as low (<50%), moderate (50%-75%), or high (>75%). RESULTS: All of the indicators showed between-hospital variation with wide (interquartile) ranges. Case-mix adjustment reduced variation in indicators 1 and 3 to 5. Random variation adjustment (further) reduced the variation for all indicators. Case-mix and random variation adjustments influenced the indicator-scores of individual hospitals and their ranking. Rankability was poor for indicator 1, 2, and 5, and moderate for 3, 4, and 6. CONCLUSIONS: The 6 indicators lacked validity and/or reliability to a certain extent. Although measuring quality indicators may stimulate quality improvement in general, comparisons and judgments of individual hospital performance should be made with caution if based on indicators that have not been tested or adjusted for validity and reliability, especially in benchmarking.

A preliminary prediction model for potentially guiding patient choices between breast conserving surgery and mastectomy in early breast cancer patients; a Dutch experience.

PURPOSE: To guide early stage breast cancer patients to choose between breast conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (MST) considering the predicted cosmetic result and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: A decision model was built to compare QoL after BCS and MST. Treatment could result in BCS with good cosmesis, BCS with poor cosmesis, MST only, and MST with breast reconstruction. QoL for these treatment outcomes were obtained from a previous study and the literature and translated into EuroQoL-5D derived utilities. Chance of good cosmesis after BCS was predicted based on tumor location and tumor/breast volume ratio. The decision model determined whether the expected QoL was superior after BCS or MST based on chance of good cosmesis. RESULTS: The mean utility for the treatments such as BCS with good cosmesis, BCS with poor cosmesis, MST only, and MST with breast reconstruction were 0.908, 0.843, 0.859, and 0.876, respectively. BCS resulted in superior QoL compared to MST in patients with a chance of good cosmesis above 36%. This 36% threshold is reached in case the tumor is located in the upper lateral, lower lateral, upper medial, lower medial, and central quadrant of the breast with a tumor/breast volume ratio below 21.6, 4.1, 15.1, 3.2, and 14.7, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BCS results in superior QoL in patients with tumors in the upper breast quadrants or centrally and a tumor/breast volume ratio below 15. MST results in superior QoL in patients with tumors in the lower breast quadrants and a tumor/breast volume ratio above 4.

Evaluation of cosmetic outcome following breast-conserving therapy in trials: panel versus digitalized analysis and the role of PROMs.

Cosmetic outcome is an important quality of life-related end point following breast-conserving therapy (BCT). To advise on a gold standard, we compare cosmetic outcome evaluated by panel and an objective evaluation (BCCT.core software). Second, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are compared to cosmetic outcome evaluation by panel and BCCT.core. Sixty-eight breast cancer patients were included following BCT between 2007 and 2012. Two independent 6-member panels and two observers using the BCCT.core evaluated cosmetic outcome. First, reproducibility, repeatability, and relatedness of panel and BCCT.core were analyzed using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Second, the association between panel/BCCT.core with PROMs (EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, EQ-5D-5L, and BREAST-Q) was analyzed with a linear regression and the goodness of fit by the R2 . Both panel and BCCT.core evaluations showed "excellent" intraobserver agreement (ICC 0.93 [95% CI: 0.83; 0.97] and 0.93 [95% CI: 0.84; 0.97]) for respectively panel 1 and BCCT.core 1 and "excellent" interobserver agreement (ICC 0.94 [95% CI: 0.90; 0.96] and 0.85 [95% CI: 0.77; 0.91]) respectively for panel and BCCT.core. Association between panel and BCCT.core varied, ICC 0.59-0.69. Only the PROM BREAST-Q showed a significant association with both panel evaluations and BCCT.core observers (panel 1 and BCCT.core 1; R2 of .157 [P = .002] and .178 [P = .001]). Both panel and BCCT.core showed comparable "excellent" intraobserver and interobserver agreement. For future trials evaluating cosmetic outcome following BCT, one of those can be chosen. Solely, the PROM BREAST-Q showed a significant association with panel and/or BCCT.core evaluation. To enable standardized cosmetic outcome evaluation and corresponding patient satisfaction in future trials, at least the BREAST-Q should be combined with a panel or BCCT.core evaluation.

Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival.

PURPOSE: In contrast to other countries, the Dutch breast cancer guideline does not recommend re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in invasive tumor and does recommend whole-breast irradiation including boost. We investigated whether omitting re-excision as compared to performing re-excision affects prognosis with a retrospective population-based cohort study. METHODS: The total cohort included 32,119 women with primary BCS for T1-T3 breast cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 from the nationwide Netherlands cancer registry. The subcohort included 10,433 patients in whom the resection margins were registered. Outcome measures were 5-year ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) rate, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate, and 10-year overall survival (OS) rate. RESULTS: In the total cohort, 25,878 (80.6%) did not have re-excision, 2368 (7.4%) had re-excision by BCS, and 3873 (12.1%) had re-excision by mastectomy. Five-year IBTR rates were 2.1, 2.8, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.001). In the subcohort, 7820 (75.0%) had negative margins without re-excision, 492 (4.7%) had focally positive margins without re-excision, 586 (5.6%) had focally positive margins and underwent re-excision, and 1535 (14.7%) had extensively positive margins and underwent re-excision. Five-year IBTR rate was 2.3, 2.9, 1.1, and 2.9%, respectively (p = 0.099). Compared to omitting re-excision, performing re-excision for focally positive margins was associated with lower risk of IBTR (adjusted HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.82), but not with DFS (adjusted HR 0.83 95% CI 0.59-1.17) nor with OS (adjusted HR 1.17 95% CI 0.87-1.59). CONCLUSION: Omitting re-excision in breast cancer patients for focally positive margins after BCS does not impair DFS and OS, provided that whole-breast irradiation including boost is given.

Patient Satisfaction and Nipple-Areola Sensitivity After Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction in a High Breast Cancer Risk Population: Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) both are associated with major risk reduction in women with high breast cancer risk. Skin-sparing mastectomy followed by nipple-areola complex (NAC) reconstruction is standard of care, but NSM is increasingly being performed. Preservation of the NAC in NSM may increase patient satisfaction. Therefore, we measured NAC sensitivity after NSM and compared patient satisfaction as well as body image after SSM with NSM. METHODS: Women who underwent prophylactic bilateral SSM or NSM and immediate implant breast reconstruction between 2002 and 2012 were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Breast-Q reconstruction questionnaire, body image using Hopwood's body image scale (BIS), and satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC using a study-specific questionnaire. In the NSM group, NAC sensitivity was assessed using Semmes Weinstein monofilaments with a 5-point scale and compared with NAC sensitivity in a nonoperated control group. RESULTS: The SSM group comprised 25 women (50 SSMs) and the NSM group 20 women (39 NSMs). Median follow-up was 65 months in the SSM group compared with 27 months in the NSM group (P < 0.01). In univariable analyses, Breast-Q scores were favorable in the SSM group compared with the NSM group with trends for higher "satisfaction with breasts" (66.2 vs 56.6; P = 0.06) and "satisfaction with outcome" (76.1 vs 61.5; P = 0.09). Mean BIS score of 7.1/30 in the SSM group and 9.3/30 in the NSM group (P = 0.35). Adjusted for follow-up, there were no significant differences in Breast-Q scores, nor in BIS scores. Interestingly, satisfaction with the (reconstructed) NAC was similar after SSM and NSM. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity was lower in the NSM group (mean score, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.3) compared with the control group (mean score, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-4.9; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Breast-Q scores regarding satisfaction with breasts and overall outcome were in favor of the SSM group. Residual NAC sensitivity after NSM was low. This suggests that SSM followed by NAC reconstruction is a balanced alternative to NSM. We observed no significant differences in body image and NAC-specific satisfaction between the NSM and SSM groups.

Preoperative prediction of cosmetic results in breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative objective predictions of cosmetic result after breast conserving surgery (BCS) has the potential to aid in surgical treatment decision making. Our aim was to investigate the predictive value of tumor volume in relation to breast volume (TV/BV ratio) for cosmetic result. METHODS: Sixty-nine invasive breast cancer women with preoperative MRI and treated by BCS and radiotherapy in 2007-2012 were prospectively included. Simple excision or basic oncoplastic techniques were used, but no volume displacement. TV/BV ratio was measured in the MRI while 3D-projected in virtual reality environment (I-Space). Cosmetic result was assessed by patient questionnaire, panel evaluation, and breast retraction assessment (BRA). Quality-of-life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver correlation coefficients for tumor and breast volume were all >0.95. Increasing TV/BV ratio correlated with decreasing cosmetic result as determined by patient, panel, and BRA. TV/BV ratio was a significant independent predictor for the panel evaluation (P=0.028), as was tumor location (P<0.05), and together they constituted a good prediction model (AUC 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: TV/BV ratio was a precise and independent predictor for cosmetic result determined by a panel and can be used as preoperative prediction tool to enable more informed surgical treatment decision making.