Overnight to Outpatient: A Single Institution's Experience With Mastectomy and Reconstruction Before and After the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Minimizing resource use while optimizing patient outcomes has become an ever-growing component in modern healthcare, especially in the era of COVID-19. One essential component of this is deciding whether patients need hospital admission following elective procedures. The aim of this study is to investigate operative factors and patient outcomes when mastectomies with or without reconstruction are performed as ambulatory procedures versus planned inpatient admissions. METHODS: Patient charts for those undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed ranging from March 2019 until February 2021. Factors such as demographic information, operative type, operating room time, cancer stage, total stay time in the medical environment, and postoperative complications were assessed and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 89 patient charts were reviewed, 46 from before the COVID-19 pandemic and 43 from after the start of the pandemic. No differences were observed in demographic factors between the 2 groups. After surgical cases resumed a significant proportion, 79%, of mastectomies with or without reconstruction were performed in the ambulatory center, versus just 2% pre-COVID-19. Similarly, of all of these cases performed, only 19% resulted in hospital admission versus the previous rate of 100% (P < 0.00001). Together, these changes resulted in a significant reduction in length of stay of 39.77 ± 19.2 hours pre-COVID-19 versus 14.81 ± 18.4 hours afterward (P < 0.00001). Unfortunately, a higher number of patients who received surgery after the start of the pandemic elected to forego immediate reconstruction 49% versus 72% (P = 0.032). Most importantly, there were no observable differences found in 7-day readmission, reoperation, or emergency department visit between groups. There was also no difference in 30-day complication rate between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mastectomy with or without reconstruction can be safely performed in the ambulatory setting without additional risk of complications or negative patient factors. This divergence from traditional the protocol of inpatient overnight admission may contribute positively toward patient comfort, minimize the use of healthcare costs and resources, and allow for increased scheduling flexibility for patient and provider alike.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

PURPOSE: An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/ 2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results. RESULTS: More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.

Triple negative mixed metaplastic breast carcinoma with squamous and spindle cells in an 84-year-old woman: a rare entity with unclear management strategy and poor prognosis.

Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast, a rare neoplasm, usually presents at an advanced stage, metastasises to distant sites more frequently, has higher Ki-67 expression and is more often triple negative compared with other invasive breast cancers. Here, the authors discuss a case of an 84-year-old woman with triple negative mixed metaplastic breast carcinoma treated with radical modified mastectomy, axillary lymph node dissection and radiation therapy. Because of the rarity of the disease, the pathogenesis and the management remain controversial, thus contributing to overall poor prognosis.

Emergent surgery for massive pulmonary embolism on the basis of clinical diagnosis.

We treated a 52-year-old man for a large pleural effusion that had occurred after he fell from a ladder. Upon discharge from the hospital, the patient collapsed and was nonresponsive and hypotensive. We suspected the cause to be pulmonary embolism. When it became evident that this patient would die without emergent intervention, he was taken to surgery. A massive clot was removed from the left pulmonary artery, and multiple smaller clots were removed from both pulmonary arteries. The patient recovered and was discharged from the hospital on the 11th postoperative day. To our knowledge, this is the 1st report of pulmonary embolectomy being performed on the basis of clinical diagnosis alone.