Positive Nipple Margins in Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Management of Nipples Containing Cancer or Atypia.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an oncologically safe approach for breast cancer treatment and prevention; however, there are little long-term data to guide management for patients whose nipple margins contain tumor or atypia. METHODS: NSM patients with tumor or atypia in their nipple margin were identified from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database of consecutive NSMs. Patient and tumor characteristics, treatment, recurrence, and survival data were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3158 NSMs were performed from June 2007 to August 2019. Nipple margins contained tumor in 117 (3.7%) NSMs and atypia only in 164 (5.2%) NSMs. Among 117 nipple margins that contained tumor, 34 (29%) margins contained invasive cancer, 80 (68%) contained ductal carcinoma in situ only, and 3 (3%) contained lymphatic vessel invasion only. Management included nipple-only excision in 67 (57%) breasts, nipple-areola complex excision in 35 (30%) breasts, and no excision in 15 (13%) breasts. Only 23 (24%) excised nipples contained residual tumor. At 67 months median follow-up, there were 2 (1.8%) recurrences in areolar or peri-areolar skin, both in patients with nipple-only excision. Among 164 nipple margins containing only atypia, 154 (94%) nipples were retained. At 60 months median follow-up, no patient with atypia alone had a nipple or areola recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Nipple excision is effective management for nipple margins containing tumor. No intervention is required for nipple margins containing only atypia. Our results support broad eligibility for NSM with careful nipple margin assessment.

Time to surgery: A health equity metric in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether time to surgery by race can be a health equity metric of surgical access. METHODS: An observational analysis was performed using the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were women with stage I-III breast cancer. We excluded women with multiple cancers and whose diagnosis was made at a different hospital. The primary outcome variable was surgery within 90 days of diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 886,840 patients were analyzed, with 76.8% White and 11.7% Black patients. 11.9% of patients experienced delayed surgery, which was significantly more common in Black patients than White patients. On adjusted analysis, Black patients were still significantly less likely to receive surgery within 90 days when compared to White patients (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.63). CONCLUSION: The delay in surgery experienced by Black patients highlights the contribution of system factors in cancer inequity and should be a focus for targeted interventions.

Oncologic Safety of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer in BRCA Gene Mutation Carriers: Outcomes at 70 Months Median Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Retention of the nipple-areola complex with nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) techniques provides a more natural cosmetic result than procedures that sacrifice the nipple. While the oncologic safety of NSM is established by several studies, there is little long-term data on outcomes in BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent NSM and immediate reconstruction from 2008 to 2019 were reviewed and patients with breast cancer on biopsy or final pathology were included. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics, as well as treatment, recurrence, and survival data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 114 therapeutic NSM were performed in 105 BRCA mutation carriers (56 BRCA1, 47 BRCA2, and two women with both mutations). Median age was 45 years. Cancers were 18% stage 0, 52% stage I, 27% stage II, and 3% stage III. Mean invasive tumor size was 1.6 cm and 33 (35%) invasive tumors were triple negative. There were five (4.4%) positive nipple margins on final pathology; all underwent nipple excision. Most patients (80, 76%) received systemic therapy: 65 (62%) received chemotherapy and 48 (46%) received endocrine therapy. At 70 months median follow-up (range 15-150 months), no patient had developed a recurrence in the retained nipple-areola complex or at the site of a nipple excised for a positive margin. The rate of locoregional recurrence outside the nipple was 2.6%, and the rate of distant recurrence was 3.8%. Overall survival was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: NSM is a safe option for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who undergo mastectomy for breast cancer.

Intraoperative Fluorescence Guidance for Breast Cancer Lumpectomy Surgery.

Fluorescence Guidance for Lumpectomy SurgeryThis prospective trial of 406 patients assessed margin status with and without pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) for stages 0 to 3 breast cancers. The use of pFGS met prespecified thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity but did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

Targeted Nipple Areola Complex Reinnervation: Technical Considerations and Surgical Efficiency in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Despite promising pilot study results, adoption of neurotization of immediate implant-based reconstructions has not occurred. Methods: For surgeons interested in adopting breast reinnervation techniques, we present ways to overcome initial barriers by decreasing operative time and maximizing chances of sensory recovery. Results: We discuss the combined experience at two academic teaching hospitals, where neurotization of both immediate tissue expander cases and direct-to-implant reconstructions are performed through varying mastectomy incisions. Conclusion: Initial barriers can be overcome by shortening operative time and providing an individualized reinnervation approach that aims to increase the chance of meaningful sensation.

Comparison of Wireless Localization Alternatives with Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency identification tag localization (TL) and magnetic seed localization (MSL) are alternatives to wire localization (WL) for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. We sought to compare localization methods with respect to operative time, specimen volume, and re-excision rate. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on TL, MSL, and WL lumpectomies and excisional biopsies at a single institution. Association between localization method and operative time, specimen volume, and re-excision rate was assessed by multiple logistic regression using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 506 procedures were included: 147 TL (29.0%), 140 MSL (27.7%), and 219 WL (43.3%). On logistic regression analysis, MSL was associated with longer operative times than WL for excisional biopsies only (OR 4.24, 95% CI 1.92 to 9.34, p < 0.001). Mean excisional biopsy time was 39.1 minutes for MSL and 33.0 minutes for WL. Specimen volume did not vary significantly across surgery types between localization methods. In an analysis of all lumpectomies with an indication of carcinoma, marker choice was not associated with rate of re-excision (TL vs WL OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.60, p = 0.342; MSL vs WL OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.49, p = 0.587; TL vs MSL OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.64, p = 0.359). CONCLUSION: TL, MSL, and WL are comparable in performance for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Although increased operative time associated with MSL vs WL excisional biopsies is statistically significant, clinical significance warrants additional study. With similar outcomes, physicians may choose the marker most appropriate for the patient and setting.

Magnetic Seeds: An Alternative to Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic seeds have emerged as an alternative to wires for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of magnetic seeds compared to wires for preoperative localization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of magnetic seed localization (MSL) and wire localization (WL) excisional biopsies and lumpectomies performed at a single institution was conducted. Indication, age, BMI, number of markers, procedure type, operative time, and postoperative opioid administration were reviewed. Impact of localization method on operative time, specimen volume, postoperative opioid administration, and re-excision rate were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 608 MSL procedures in 601 patients were compared to 628 WL procedures in 620 patients. MSL excisional biopsies were significantly longer (37.0 minutes) than WL excisional biopsies (31.9 minutes, P< .001), but in lumpectomies without axillary surgery, MSL procedures (42.3 minutes) were significantly shorter than WL procedures (46.9 minutes, P = .017). Significantly less tissue was excised during MSL lumpectomies (68.5 cm3) and excisional biopsies (32.3 cm3) than WL lumpectomies (78.1 cm3, P = .039) and excisional biopsies (38.7 cm3, P = .018). Postoperative opioid administration was similar for MSL and WL procedures (P = .076). Re-excision rates for MSL lumpectomies were significantly higher for ductal carcinoma in situ (35.3% MSL vs. 18.5% WL, P = .013), but were similar for invasive carcinoma (14.4% MSL vs. 17.7% WL, P = .290). Logistic regression analysis showed no association between localization method and re-excision (OR 1.007, 95% CI 0.681-1.488; P = .973). CONCLUSION: MSL is a feasible alternative to WL for excision of nonpalpable breast lesions with regard to surgical outcomes.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy: Does Saving the Nipple Impact Short- and Long-Term Patient Satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is an oncologically safe alternative to skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). This study evaluated whether NSM patients were more satisfied than SSM patients in short- and long-term follow-up. METHODS: Women who underwent NSM or SSM between 2009 and 2019 completed a postoperative BREAST-Q survey at least 1 year after surgery and patient characteristics were compared. Patient satisfaction at 1-5 years and 6-10 years after NSM and SSM were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 431 patients were included; 247 had NSM and 184 had SSM 1-10 years prior to BREAST-Q survey completion. SSM patients were older, had higher body mass index (BMI), larger breast weight, and more hypertension than NSM patients, but oncologic treatments were similar between groups. BREAST-Q Psychosocial Well-Being and Sexual Well-Being scores were significantly higher in NSM patients compared with SSM patients in the 1-5 years cohort; however, scores attenuated in the 6-10 years cohort. Satisfaction with breasts was nearly significantly higher in NSM patients compared with SSM patients in the 1-5 years cohort (p = 0.056), but no different in the 6-10 years cohort. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, receipt of postmastectomy radiation therapy, and BMI ≥30 were independent risk factors for dissatisfaction with breasts. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are not candidates for NSM should be reassured that long-term qualify of life is not significantly different between SSM and NSM. Dissatisfaction with reconstructed breasts is linked with other factors (besides the nipple), which patients should be made aware of at the time of surgical decision making.

How Protective are Nipple-Sparing Prophylactic Mastectomies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers?

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is now routinely offered to BRCA mutation carriers for risk reduction. We assessed the rates of ipsilateral cancer events after prophylactic and therapeutic NSM in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers undergoing NSM from October 2007 to June 2019 were identified in a single-institution prospective database, with variants of unknown significance being excluded. Patient, tumor, and outcomes data were collected. Follow-up analysis was by cumulative breast-years (total years of follow-up of each breast) and woman-years (total years of follow-up of each woman). RESULTS: Overall, 307 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (160 BRCA1, mean age 41.4 years [range 21-65]; and 147 BRCA2, mean age 43.8 years [range 23-65]) underwent 607 NSMs, with a median follow-up of 42 months (range 1-143). 388 bilateral prophylactic NSMs had 744 cumulative woman-years of follow-up, with no new cancers seen (< 0.0013 new cancers per woman-years); 251 BRCA1 prophylactic NSMs had 1034 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with no new ipsilateral cancers seen (< 0.0010 per breast-year); 66 BRCA1 therapeutic NSMs had 328 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with one ipsilateral cancer recurrence not directly involving the nipple or areola (0.0030 per breast-year); 237 BRCA2 prophylactic NSMs had 926 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with no new ipsilateral cancers seen (< 0.0011 per breast-year); and 53 BRCA2 therapeutic NSMs had 239 cumulative breast-years of follow-up, with two ipsilateral recurrent cancers, neither of which directly involved the nipple or areola (0.0084 per breast-year). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of new ipsilateral breast cancers is extremely low after NSM in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. NSM is an effective risk-reducing strategy for BRCA gene mutations.

Performance of a novel protease-activated fluorescent imaging system for intraoperative detection of residual breast cancer during breast conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: Safe breast cancer lumpectomies require microscopically clear margins. Real-time margin assessment options are limited, and 20-40% of lumpectomies have positive margins requiring re-excision. The LUM Imaging System previously showed excellent sensitivity and specificity for tumor detection during lumpectomy surgery. We explored its impact on surgical workflow and performance across patient and tumor types. METHODS: We performed IRB-approved, prospective, non-randomized studies in breast cancer lumpectomy procedures. The LUM Imaging System uses LUM015, a protease-activated fluorescent imaging agent that identifies residual tumor in the surgical cavity walls. Fluorescent cavity images were collected in real-time and analyzed using system software. RESULTS: Cavity and specimen images were obtained in 55 patients injected with LUM015 at 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg and in 5 patients who did not receive LUM015. All tumor types were distinguished from normal tissue, with mean tumor:normal (T:N) signal ratios of 3.81-5.69. T:N ratios were 4.45 in non-dense and 4.00 in dense breasts (p = 0.59) and 3.52 in premenopausal and 4.59 in postmenopausal women (p = 0.19). Histopathology and tumor receptor testing were not affected by LUM015. Falsely positive readings were more likely when tumor was present < 2 mm from the adjacent specimen margin. LUM015 signal was stable in vivo at least 6.5 h post injection, and ex vivo at least 4 h post excision. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative use of the LUM Imaging System detected all breast cancer subtypes with robust performance independent of menopausal status and breast density. There was no significant impact on histopathology or receptor evaluation.

ATM Variants in Breast Cancer: Implications for Breast Radiation Therapy Treatment Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Advances in germline genetic testing have led to a surge in identification of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) variant carriers among breast cancer patients, raising numerous questions regarding use of breast radiation therapy (RT) in this population. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed identified articles assessing association(s) between the germline ATM variant status and the risk of toxicity after breast RT. An expert panel of breast radiation oncologists, genetic counselors, and basic scientists convened to review the association between ATM variants and radiation-induced toxicity or secondary malignancy risk and to determine any impact on breast RT recommendations. RESULTS: Carriers of pathogenic variants in ATM have a 2- to 4-fold increased risk for developing breast cancer. ATM variants do not consistently increase risks of toxicities after RT, except possibly among patients with the single nucleotide variant c5557G>A (rs1801516), in whom a small increased risk for the development of both acute and late radiation effects has been identified. In most breast cancer patients with ATM variants, the excess 5-year absolute risk of developing a secondary contralateral breast cancer (CBC) after radiation is extremely low. The exception is in women younger than 45 years old with deleterious rare ATM missense variants, who may be at higher risk for developing a radiation-induced CBC over time. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant radiation is safe for most breast cancer patients who harbor ATM variants. The possible exceptions are patients with the variant c5557G>A (rs1801516) and patients younger than 45 years old with certain rare deleterious ATM variants, who may be at higher risk for developing CBC. These latter patients should be counseled regarding this potential risk, and every effort should be made to minimize the contralateral breast dose. However, the inconsistency of published data limits precise recommendations, magnifying the need for further prospective studies and the development of a centralized database cataloging RT outcomes and genetic status.

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.

Node-Positive Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Can Be Spared Axillary Lymph Node Dissection with Wireless Non-Radioactive Localizers.

BACKGROUND: Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) involves sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and excision of a biopsy-proven node marked by a clip. This study evaluates the feasibility of non-radioactive wireless localizers for targeted excision of clipped axillary lymph nodes. METHODS: We identified biopsy-proven, node-positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and TAD from 2016 to 2020, and included those with a clipped node localized using SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, or RFID Tag. Primary outcome measures were (1) successful localization (ultrasound or mammographic-guided placement < 10 mm from target), and (2) retrieval of the clipped node during TAD, documented by specimen radiography or gross visualization. Secondary outcomes included rates of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) and complications. RESULTS: Overall, 57 patients were included; 1 (1.8%) patient had no clip visible at the time of localization, and no radiographic confirmation of clip placement at the time of biopsy, and was therefore excluded. In the remaining 56 patients, localization was successful in 53 (94.6%) patients and the clipped node was retrieved during TAD in 51 (91.1%) patients. Twenty-three of 27 (85.2%) ypN0 patients were spared cALND; 3 (11.1%) patients had cALND for failed clipped node retrieval during TAD, and 1 (3.7%) for false-positive frozen section. In patients with TAD alone, the rates of axillary seroma and infection were 20.0% and 8.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Wireless non-radioactive localizers are feasible for axillary localization after NAT, with high success rates of retrieving clipped nodes. The lack of signal decay is an advantage of these devices, allowing flexibility in timing of placement.

A system for risk stratification and prioritization of breast cancer surgeries delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic: preparing for re-entry.

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most breast surgery for benign and malignant conditions has been postponed, creating a backlog of patients who will need surgery. A fair and transparent system for assessing the risk of further delaying surgery for individual patients to prioritize surgical scheduling is needed. METHODS: Factors related to risk of delaying surgery for breast patients were identified. Scores were assigned to each factor, with higher scores indicating a greater risk from delaying surgery. REDCap and Microsoft Excel tools were designed to track and score delayed patients. RESULTS: Published data and multidisciplinary clinical judgement were used to assign risk scores based on patient and tumor factors, length of delay, and tumor response to preoperative therapy. Patients completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assigned the highest scores as their options for delaying surgery are most limited. Among patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy or no medical therapy, higher scores were assigned for low-estrogen receptor or high-genomic risk scores, higher grade, larger tumors, younger age and longer delay. High priority scores were assigned for progression during preoperative therapy. Low scores were assigned for re-excisions, atypical lesions and other benign indications. There was good agreement of the tool's ranking of sample patients with rankings by experienced clinicians. The tool generates risk-stratified patient lists by surgeon or institution to facilitate assignment of surgery dates. CONCLUSIONS: This tool generates a clinically consistent, risk-stratified priority list of breast surgical procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic approach may facilitate surgical scheduling as conditions normalize.

Correction to: Feasibility Study of a Novel Protease-Activated Fluorescent Imaging System for Real-Time, Intraoperative Detection of Residual Breast Cancer in Breast Conserving Surgery.

The article Feasibility Study of a Novel Protease-Activated Fluorescent Imaging System for Real-Time, Intraoperative Detection of Residual Breast Cancer in Breast Conserving Surgery, written by Barbara L. Smith et al., was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal on January 2, 2020, without open access.

Feasibility Study of a Novel Protease-Activated Fluorescent Imaging System for Real-Time, Intraoperative Detection of Residual Breast Cancer in Breast Conserving Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining tumor-free margins is critical to prevent recurrence after lumpectomy for breast cancer. Unfortunately, current approaches leave positive margins that require second surgeries in 20-40% of patients. We assessed the LUM Imaging System for real-time, intraoperative detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Breast lumpectomy cavity walls and excised specimens were assessed with the LUM Imaging System after 1 mg/kg intravenous LUM015, a protease-activatable fluorescent agent. Fluorescence at potential sites of residual tumor in lumpectomy cavity walls was evaluated intraoperatively with a sterile hand-held probe, with real-time predictive results displayed on a monitor intraoperatively, and later correlated with histopathology. RESULTS: In vivo lumpectomy cavities and excised specimens were imaged after LUM015 injection in 45 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Invasive ductal and lobular cancers and intraductal cancer (DCIS) were included. A total of 570 cavity margin surfaces in 40 patients were used for algorithm development. Image analysis and display took approximately 1 s per 2.6-cm-diameter circular margin surface. All breast cancer subtypes could be distinguished from adjacent normal tissue. For all imaged cavity surfaces, sensitivity for tumor detection was 84%. Among 8 patients with positive margins after standard surgery, sensitivity for residual tumor detection was 100%; 2 of 8 were spared second surgeries because additional tissue was excised at sites of LUM015 signal. Specificity was 73%, with some benign tissues showing elevated fluorescent signal. CONCLUSIONS: The LUM015 agent and LUM Imaging System allow rapid identification of residual tumor in the lumpectomy cavity of breast cancer patients and may reduce rates of positive margins.

Using Smartphones to Capture Novel Recovery Metrics After Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Patient-generated health data captured from smartphone sensors have the potential to better quantify the physical outcomes of surgery. The ability of these data to discriminate between postoperative trends in physical activity remains unknown. Objective: To assess whether physical activity captured from smartphone accelerometer data can be used to describe postoperative recovery among patients undergoing cancer operations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted from July 2017 to April 2019 in a single academic tertiary care hospital in the United States. Preoperatively, adults (age ≥18 years) who spoke English and were undergoing elective operations for skin, soft tissue, head, neck, and abdominal cancers were approached. Patients were excluded if they did not own a smartphone. Exposures: Study participants downloaded an application that collected smartphone accelerometer data continuously for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points were trends in daily exertional activity and the ability to achieve at least 60 minutes of daily exertional activity after surgery among patients with vs without a clinically significant postoperative event. Postoperative events were defined as complications, emergency department presentations, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality. Results: A total of 139 individuals were approached. In the 62 enrolled patients, who were followed up for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 147 (77-179) days, there were no preprocedural differences between patients with vs without a postoperative event. Seventeen patients (27%) experienced a postoperative event. These patients had longer operations than those without a postoperative event (median [IQR], 225 [152-402] minutes vs 107 [68-174] minutes; P < .001), as well as greater blood loss (median [IQR], 200 [35-515] mL vs 25 [5-100] mL; P = .006) and more follow-up visits (median [IQR], 2 [2-4] visits vs 1 [1-2] visits; P = .002). Compared with mean baseline daily exertional activity, patients with a postoperative event had lower activity at week 1 (difference, -41.6 [95% CI, -75.1 to -8.0] minutes; P = .02), week 3 (difference, -40.0 [95% CI, -72.3 to -3.6] minutes; P = .03), week 5 (difference, -39.6 [95% CI, -69.1 to -10.1] minutes; P = .01), and week 6 (difference, -36.2 [95% CI, -64.5 to -7.8] minutes; P = .01) postoperatively. Fewer of these patients were able to achieve 60 minutes of daily exertional activity in the 6 weeks postoperatively (proportions: week 1, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.31-0.49]; P < .001; week 2, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.58]; P = .003; week 3, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.30-0.48]; P < .001; week 4, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38-0.57]; P < .001; week 5, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42-0.60]; P < .001; week 6, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.68-0.79] vs 0.43 [95% CI, 0.33-0.52]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Smartphone accelerometer data can describe differences in postoperative physical activity among patients with vs without a postoperative event. These data help objectively quantify patient-centered surgical recovery, which have the potential to improve and promote shared decision-making, recovery monitoring, and patient engagement.

Long-Term Outcomes of Multiple-Wire Localizations for More Extensive Breast Cancer: Multiple-Wire Excision Does Not Increase Recurrence, Unplanned Imaging, or Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that breast conservation was feasible for women with large or irregularly shaped breast cancers when tumor resection was guided by multiple localizing wires. We now report long-term outcomes of multiple-wire versus single-wire localized lumpectomies for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed wire-localized lumpectomies at our institution from May 2000 to November 2006. Rates of ipsilateral in-breast tumor recurrence, metastasis, and subsequent unplanned diagnostic imaging and biopsy were compared between multiple-wire and single-wire cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 112 multiple-wire and 160 single-wire breast cancer lumpectomies that achieved clear margins. Median age was 64 years in the multiple-wire cohort and 57 years in the single-wire cohort. Mean lumpectomy volume was 75 mL in multiple-wire patients and 49 mL in single-wire patients (P = .003). Invasive tumor size, axillary node status, and use of radiation and systemic therapy were similar, but the multiple-wire group had more patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ only (38% vs. 28%). At 108 months' median follow-up, there was no significant difference in local or distant recurrence rates between multiple-wire and single-wire cohorts. Six (5%) multiple-wire patients and 6 (4%) single-wire patients had local recurrences and 3 (3%) multiple-wire and 5 (3%) single-wire patients developed metastatic disease. Unplanned diagnostic imaging was required for 53 (47%) multiple-wire and 65 (41%) single-wire patients. Subsequent ipsilateral biopsy occurred in 15 (13%) multiple-wire and 19 (12%) single-wire patients. CONCLUSION: Breast-conserving surgery with multiple localizing wires is a safe alternative to mastectomy for breast cancer patients with large mammographic lesions.