Outcomes for Patients with Residual Stage II/III Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (AFT-01).

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy has a demonstrated survival advantage; however, outcomes for non-pCR by receptor status are less understood. We sought to evaluate survival and distant recurrence by receptor status for patients with residual stage II/III breast cancer. METHODS: A stage-stratified random sample of 11,366 patients with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 was selected from 1217 facilities in the National Cancer Database for a Commission on Cancer Special Study. We identified patients with residual pathologic stage II/III cancer who received standard of care therapy based on receptor status. Distant recurrence and 5-year survival were abstracted and Kaplan-Meier curves were generated by receptor status. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios for death and distant recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 734 patients had residual disease; 58%, 28%, and 14% were ER or PR+/Her2neu-, ER and PR-/Her2neu-, and Her2neu+ (any ER/PR), respectively. ER and PR-/Her2neu- cancers had the poorest 5-year overall (52% vs. 82% for Her2neu+ and ER or PR+/Her2neu-, p < 0.0001) and distant recurrence-free survival (57% vs. 72% Her2neu+ and 77% ER or PR+/Her2neu, p < 0.0001). Cox regression models demonstrated a higher likelihood of distant recurrence and death for patients with ER and PR-/Her2neu- disease (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.56-3.24 and HR 3.19, 95% CI 2.20-4.64 respectively) compared with ER or PR+/Her2neu-. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with residual ER and PR-/Her2neu- cancer have a significant risk of distant recurrence and mortality compared with other breast cancer types, supporting the consideration for additional adjuvant therapy and novel clinical trials in this cohort. Trial registry number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02171078.

Breast cancer survivor's perspectives on the role different providers play in follow-up care.

IMPORTANCE: Significant variation in the number and types of oncologists that provide breast cancer follow-up exists. However, there is limited understanding regarding breast cancer survivors' preferences for who provides their follow-up. Our objective was to explore breast cancer survivors' perspectives on the goals of breast cancer follow-up, the preferred role for primary care providers, and the perceived roles of different types of oncologists during follow-up. METHODS: A convenience sample of stage 0-III breast cancer survivors was identified and in-depth one-on-one interviews conducted. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Survivors cited a strong preference for oncology-based follow-up within the first 5 years after diagnosis, driven by their need for reassurance that cancer had not recurred. Survivors also thought that their primary care provider needed to be involved. Survivors assumed that oncology follow-up was directed by a standard protocol that included streamlining the follow-up team. Survivors recognized that patients with more complex cancers or challenging treatment courses may require more intensive follow-up and deviate from the standard protocol. Most survivors were comfortable deferring decisions regarding who participated in follow-up to the oncology team. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients think a streamlined approach to oncology-based breast cancer follow-up already occurs, driven by a standard protocol. The use of a standard protocol to provide guidance for which types of oncology providers should participate in breast cancer follow-up will streamline care and represents a significant opportunity to reduce unnecessary variation. This approach is especially critical given patients' strong preferences for oncology-based follow-up.

Does neoadjuvant bevacizumab increase surgical complications in breast surgery?

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being increasingly used in operable breast cancer. There are limited data on the safety of bevacizumab (bev) in the neoadjuvant setting. We sought to explore the safety of neoadjuvant cisplatin/bev in a protocol for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 51 patients with confirmed TNBC were enrolled in a single-arm trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin plus bev. Of the 51 patients, 28 with confirmed TNBC were enrolled in our trial of single-agent neoadjuvant cisplatin. Two-sided Fisher exact test were used for comparing the 2 trials. RESULTS: The 51 patients received neoadjuvant protocol therapy with cisplatin/bev and underwent definitive local therapy. Breast conserving therapy (BCT) was performed in 29 (57%) and mastectomy with or without reconstruction in 22 (43%). Postoperative complications were reported in 22 patients (43%); 4 (8%) required explanation of expanders. Also, 28 patients completed neoadjuvant cisplatin therapy. BCT was performed in 13 (46%) and mastectomy with or without reconstruction in 15 (54%). Postoperative complications were reported in 11 patients (39%). None of the 5 reconstructions were lost. We compared all toxicities between the two trials (P = .81 NS), and wound healing related complications between the two trials (P = .10 NS). CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin/bevacizumab and cisplatin alone neoadjuvant therapy resulted in a significant number of postoperative complications. Specifically, use of expanders/implants may be problematic for patients treated with bev. However, this was a single-arm trial; randomized controlled studies will be needed to determine the optimal use of bevacizumab in the timing of breast cancer surgery.

[Surgical volume. An American perspective]. / Chirurgische Fallzahl. Die amerikanische Perspektive.

Due to an increasing interest in patient safety and quality health care, many studies attempt to show a relationship between procedural volume at the institutional and individual level and patient outcome. Despite the correlation between number of surgeons and institutional volume in major operative procedures such as coronary artery bypass graft, pancreatic resection, and esophagectomy, these parameters are likely to be proxy for individual factors such as experience and structural aspects. In general the relationship between case numbers and results is more convincing in cancer surgery than for cardiovascular procedures, and risk adjustment may play an important role for interpreting results of the various studies. Exact thresholds cannot be determined and thus remain speculative. It appears difficult to implement practical changes based on the observations, because the etiology and causality of the relationship between volume and outcome are still not understood. The simple focus on volume does not apply to measurements of quality but can be a starting point for further studies to identify more specific factors associated with surgical quality.