Male Breast Cancer With Dual BRCA2 and BRIP1 Deleterious Gene Mutations.

Background: Male breast cancer remains relatively underexplored in the medical literature. At present, male patients with breast cancer follow the same treatment guidelines as female patients with breast cancer, principally because of similar outcomes with treatment. However, this practice should not preclude generating evidence for male breast cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management. BRCA2 gene mutations are associated with an increased risk of male breast cancer, along with lesser-known gene mutations that could also increase this risk, such as mutations of the BRIP1 gene. This case report presents a male patient with dual BRCA2 and BRIP1 deleterious gene mutations. To our knowledge, this combination has not been reported in the medical literature to date. Case Report: A 53-year-old male presented with a palpable symptomatic mass underneath the right nipple-areolar complex. Biopsies confirmed a poorly differentiated, infiltrating ductal carcinoma that was estrogen and progesterone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative. The patient underwent a left modified radical mastectomy, with a right prophylactic simple mastectomy. Postoperatively, he underwent adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Conclusion: This novel case of genetically based male breast cancer with dual deleterious gene mutations provides insight into current treatment recommendations and the subtle differences between male breast cancer and female breast cancer. Engaging in discussions surrounding such rare cases not only raises awareness of male breast cancer but also indicates the need for further research aimed at establishing evidence-based management strategies for male patients with breast cancer.

Outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program to limit perioperative opioid use in outpatient minimally invasive GI and hernia surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative pain management is important for patient satisfaction while returning to homeostasis in the safest way possible. Studies show that patients don't require as much opioids as once thought. The benefits of ERAS pathways extend beyond enhancement of patients' perioperative experience, and include reducing opioid prescriptions in the face of the ongoing nationwide opioid crisis and evidence of prescription opioids as a contributor. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing same day minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures for GI and hernia disease using a minimal-opioid ERAS protocol at two community hospitals between January 2020 and May 2022. We included elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis without perforation, and minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) inguinal and ventral hernia repair or abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Primary outcome was postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 509 patients were included, undergoing procedures of MIS hernia repair (52.5%), LC (43.6%), and LA (7.9%). Only 9.4% of patients received opioid prescriptions at discharge, with no difference between groups. Among the patients receiving a prescription at discharge, there was a significant difference in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed (25.0 ± 0.0 in the LA group, 65.0 ± 41.4 in the LC group, 100.6 ± 46.2 in the MIS hernia/AWR group; P = 0.015). Nine percent of patients called with pain management concerns postoperatively. ASA score ≥ 3 was associated with increased odds for postoperative opioid prescription (OR 2.084; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that an opioid-sparing ERAS program effectively manages pain for patients undergoing multiple outpatient MIS GI/hernia procedures, and suggests generalizability across a diverse range of operations. Therefore, the use of ERAS may safely and effectively expand beyond inpatient MIS and open surgeries that target reduced length of stay to also minimize opioids for outpatient procedures.

Impact of Frailty Upon Surgical Decision-Making for Left-Sided Colon Cancer.

Background: Frailty is characterized by reduced physiologic reserve, and for patients with colon cancer, frailty is associated with increased morbidity after resection. One commonly cited reason for performing an end colostomy vs a primary anastomosis in left-sided colon cancer is the belief that frail patients do not have the physiologic reserve to withstand the morbidity associated with an anastomotic leak. We explored the impact of frailty on the type of operation performed in patients with left-sided colon cancer. Methods: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program for patients with colon cancer who underwent a left-sided colectomy from 2016 to 2018. Patients were categorized using the modified 5-item frailty index. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of complications and type of operation performed. Results: Of 17,461 patients, 20.7% were considered frail. Frail patients received an end colostomy more often than nonfrail patients (11.3% vs 9.6%, P=0.01). On multivariate analysis, frailty was a significant predictor for total medical complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% CI 1.29-1.63) and readmission (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77) but was not independently associated with organ space surgical site infections or reoperation. Frailty was independently associated with receiving an end colostomy vs a primary anastomosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.44), but an end colostomy did not decrease the risk of reoperation or organ space surgical site infections. Conclusion: Frail patients with left-sided colon cancer are more likely to receive an end colostomy, but an end colostomy does not lower the risk of reoperation or organ space surgical site infections. Based on these results, frailty alone should not prompt the decision to perform an end colostomy, but further studies are needed to guide surgical decision-making in this understudied population.