Defining breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) prevalence and risk factors: A pragmatic approach to lymphedema surveillance.

Introduction: We presented the key findings from Singapore's Changi General Hospital Breast Centre's lymphedema surveillance strategy that used patients' reported symptoms, standard arm circumference measurements and clinical assessment in the diagnosis of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Our secondary aim was to highlight and discuss important elements of a surveillance strategy that can be implemented to track this outcome measure of breast cancer treatment for future research. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 511 breast cancer patients to assess the prevalence of BCRL and its associated risk factors. We defined BCRL prevalence rates based on patients' self-reporting, objective arm circumference measure-ments and clinical diagnosis based on International Society of Lymphology (ISL) staging. Results: The median follow-up of patients was 88.8 months. The cumulative prevalence rate in the cohort was 30.9%. The cohort of BCRL patients were older (58.4 versus [vs] 54.9 years), had higher mean Body Mass Index (27.7 vs 25.2), higher proportion of mastectomy (77% vs 64.3%), axillary clearance, less likely breast reconstruction, higher-grade tumour, more lymph nodes excised, more advanced nodal disease, and had undergone adjuvant chemotherapy. However, clinically apparent BCRL was only 6.5% (33 out of 511 patients). The proportion of clinically significant BCRL in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary sampling was 1.7% compared to 9.9% in patients who had undergone axillary clearance. Majority of the BCRL were subclinical or mild in severity. Conclusion: Our study showed that our rates of BCRL were comparable to international rates and highlighted similar patient profiles who were at risk of developing the disease. Having a comprehensive lymphedema surveillance strategy is paramount in paving the way for future studies.

Pilot robotic mastectomy in Singapore (PRoMiSing I) study: first safety and feasibility prospective cohort trial in South East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Robotic mastectomy has been performed worldwide since 2015. The advantages of the robotic approach in nipple-sparing mastectomy have been proven with better visualization and preservation of blood supply to the nipple-areolar complex (NAC), with a lower incidence of necrosis. It also allows smaller incisions for both mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. To date, no centers in Singapore and Southeast Asia offer robotic mastectomy. We believe that robotic mastectomy is a feasible and safe technique that can be utilized by our population. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and perform a learning curve analysis in patients undergoing robotic mastectomy in a multi-ethnic South East Asian population. METHODS: A single arm prospective pilot study of eligible patients aged 21-70 years old with early breast cancer or high-risk patients indicated for risk reducing mastectomy who were eligible and consented for robotic mastectomy were enrolled in this trial from 22nd December 2022 to 15th December 2023. RESULTS: A total of 29 consecutive robotic mastectomies were performed. The mean total operative time was 95±10.2 minutes. The average blood loss was 5.7±1.9 ml and the average length of stay was 1.05 days. The mean mastectomy specimen weight was 251 g, and there was no conversion to conventional mastectomy in any case. Furthermore, there were no 30-days morbidity or complications in terms of wound infection requiring intervention, flap and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis, and postoperative hematoma/bleeding requiring intervention. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the current evidence that robotic mastectomy is a safe and feasible option, and could prove to be a great alternative to conventional mastectomy. Further prospective trials examining the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic mastectomy will be performed to establish the oncologic safety of this technique in breast cancer treatment.

Does concomitant ductal carcinoma in situ affect the clinical outcome in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma: An Asian perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is an established precursor to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and its coexistence with IDC appear to favor reduced biological aggressiveness. Its prognostic implication and ability to affect clinical outcome has been understudied in Asia. This study aims to explore if concomitant DCIS affects the clinical behavior and outcomes among Asians. AIM: Stages I to III breast cancer patients with histological proven IDC, diagnosed and treated in a single institution from June 1, 2004 to June 30, 2014 were included in this study. Statistical analyses were conducted using Χ2 test, independent t test, multivariate logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier test. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 818 patients were identified, including 224 and 594 patients with isolated IDC (No-DCIS) and IDC with coexisting DCIS (IDC-DCIS) respectively. Patients with IDC-DCIS were found to have smaller tumors (median: 22 mm, p ≤ .01), estrogen receptor positivity (p = .001), progesterone receptor positivity (p < .001) and associated with better pathological stage (p = .001). Patients with No-DCIS were 1.6 times more likely to develop disease progression (95% CI: 1.1-2.3, p = .027) and subsequently associated with distant recurrences (20.5% vs. 13.6%, p = .02). The breast cancer specific 5 year overall survival rate for patients with No-DCIS and those with IDC-DCIS was 90.9% (95% CI: 86.2%-94.5%) and 93.7% (95% CI: 91.4%-95.5%), respectively (p = .202). CONCLUSION: The presence of DCIS component in IDC among Asians is associated with favorable tumor biological profile, thereby indicating reduced disease aggressiveness. Our study is the first to report the clinical significance in terms of disease progression and distant recurrences among Asians.

Overlap of high-risk individuals predicted by family history, and genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction models: implications for risk stratification.

BACKGROUND: Family history, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors can stratify women according to their individual risk of developing breast cancer. The extent of overlap between these risk predictors is not clear. METHODS: In this case-only analysis involving 7600 Asian breast cancer patients diagnosed between age 30 and 75 years, we examined identification of high-risk patients based on positive family history, the Gail model 5-year absolute risk [5yAR] above 1.3%, breast cancer predisposition genes (protein-truncating variants [PTV] in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53), and polygenic risk score (PRS) 5yAR above 1.3%. RESULTS: Correlation between 5yAR (at age of diagnosis) predicted by PRS and the Gail model was low (r=0.27). Fifty-three percent of breast cancer patients (n=4041) were considered high risk by one or more classification criteria. Positive family history, PTV carriership, PRS, or the Gail model identified 1247 (16%), 385 (5%), 2774 (36%), and 1592 (21%) patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. In a subset of 3227 women aged below 50 years, the four models studied identified 470 (15%), 213 (7%), 769 (24%), and 325 (10%) unique patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. For younger women, PRS and PTVs together identified 745 (59% of 1276) high-risk individuals who were not identified by the Gail model or family history. CONCLUSIONS: Family history and genetic and non-genetic risk stratification tools have the potential to complement one another to identify women at high risk.

Impact of health talks on knowledge, attitudes and perception of breast cancer screening and treatment amongst healthcare staff by a breast surgical unit in a public healthcare institution: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In October 2019, surgeons from Changi General Hospital (CGH) Breast Centre delivered a series of health talk for its employees to assess the knowledge and perception of breast cancer screening and to improve the level of related knowledge amongst the institution's healthcare workers. This was to enable CGH, a healthcare provider to not only care for our patients, but also to look after its staff. METHODS: 141 hospital staff attended a 40-min talk followed by an open question and answer forum. Pre and post talk surveys were conducted to gauge knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and misconceptions towards breast cancer screening and treatment. Question domains were divided into (1) breast cancer knowledge, (2) breast cancer screening guidelines and (3) attitudes and perception of breast cancer screening and treatment. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to examine the relationship between demographics and performance in question domains. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 131 out of a total of 141 attendees (92.9%). The median age was 44 years old (range, 22-67), with nursing staff making up 40% of the cohort. Analysis showed statistically significant improvement in median score across all 3 domains. (p < 0.05) after the forum. We found that respondents who were women ≥ 40 years (eligible age for screening), had higher income, lived in larger housing types, had attended previous talks, had served > 10 years in healthcare and had personal encounter with breast cancer patients performed better. Surprisingly, being a nurse or having a university degree did not translate to a better score. 99% of respondents found the forum beneficial and would recommend it to others. Several knowledge gaps about breast cancer screening and misconceptions were identified. Future campaigns should focus on raising awareness of the national screening program BreastScreen Singapore. We aim to reinforce its recommendations, promote on the affordability and ready accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: A simple Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign targeted at healthcare workers was found to be effective at educating hospital staff on breast cancer, screening practices and improving perception of screening and treatment practices. This may empower them to not only care for themselves but also to serve patients better.

Primary breast lymphoma: A single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma is an extremely rare entity, and this condition represents less than 0.5% of all malignant lesions involving the mammary gland. As such, there has been a paucity of relevant clinical data arising from Southeast Asia. AIMS: Our study aims to review the clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, treatment, and survival outcomes of all patients diagnosed with primary breast lymphoma in our institution between 2011 and 2017. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who had histologically proven lymphoma involving the breast were identified from a prospectively collected database in a single institution between 2011 and 2017. All seven patients were female, with a median age of 65 years old, and had presented with unilateral large breast or axillary masses. All the histological diagnosis was achieved with adequate tissue diagnosis either through core, incisional, or excisional biopsy. Five patients had diffuse large B cell lymphoma, one had marginal zone lymphoma, and the other had follicular lymphoma. Based on Ann Arbor classification, one patient had stage 1, three had stage 2, one with stage 3, and two patients with stage 4 disease. Five patients had received standard CHOP regimen with rituximab. At the time of analysis, patients who had nondisseminated disease had a median survival of 57 months. The overall mean survival time for all seven patients was 47 months. With the standard systemic chemotherapy treatment regimen, the estimated 3-year overall survival was found to be 64%. CONCLUSION: Primary breast lymphoma, though uncommon, may present in a similar manner as breast carcinomas, but the main treatment modality remains nonsurgical with systemic chemotherapy. Hence, it is prudent to obtain accurate histological diagnosis of primary breast lymphoma. In this study, our patients with nondisseminated breast lymphoma have demonstrated a fairly good survival outcome following chemotherapy.