The Impact of the Gut Microbiome, Environment, and Diet in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Development.

Traditionally considered a disease common in the older population, colorectal cancer is increasing in incidence among younger demographics. Evidence suggests that populational- and generational-level shifts in the composition of the human gut microbiome may be tied to the recent trends in gastrointestinal carcinogenesis. This review provides an overview of current research and putative mechanisms behind the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in the younger population, with insight into future interventions that may prevent or reverse the rate of early-onset colorectal carcinoma.

Contemporary Treatment Paradigms are Associated with Improved Survival in Pancreatic Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, a paradigm shift has been made in treating pancreatic cancer. Starting in 2011, several trials demonstrated a survival advantage for multiagent chemotherapy (MAC). However, the implication for survival at the population level remains unclear. METHODS: A retrospective study of the National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2019 was conducted. Patients treated from 2006 to 2010 were classified as "Era 1", and those treated from 2011 to 2019 as "Era 2." RESULTS: A total of 316,393 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified, with 87,742 treated in Era 1 and 228,651 in Era 2. Survival increased from Era 1 to Era 2 in all patients and sub-analyses; surgical (18.7 vs 24.6 months, HR .85, 95% CI 0.82-.88, P < .001), imminently resectable (Stage IA and IB, 12.2 vs 14.8 months, HR .90, 95% CI 0.86-.95, P < .001), high-risk (Stage IIA, IIB, and III, 9.6 vs 11.6 months, HR .82, 95% CI 0.79-.85, P < .001), and Stage IV (3.5 vs 3.9 months, HR .86, 95% CI 0.84-.89, P < .001). Survival was decreased for those who were African American (P = .031), on Medicaid (P < .001), or in the lowest quartile of annual income (P < .001). Surgery rates decreased from 20.5% in Era 1 to 19.8% in Era 2 (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Adoption of MAC regimens at a population level correlates with improved pancreatic cancer survival. Unfortunately, socioeconomic factors are associated with an unequal benefit from new treatment regimens, and underuse of surgery for resectable neoplasms persists.

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.

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.

One-Year Experience of Same-Day Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of same-day mastectomy with reconstruction has continued to increase across the United States in recent years. Prior studies have shown that same-day mastectomy with reconstruction leads to increased patient satisfaction and allows hospitals to use resources better. This study sought to evaluate the implementation of same-day mastectomy with a reconstruction recovery protocol for patients undergoing mastectomy at our institution. METHODS: Under an institutional review board-approved protocol, a retrospective cohort analysis compared patients who underwent mastectomy April 2016 through April 2017 with those who had mastectomy March 2020 through March 2021. Length of stay, postoperative intravenous (IV) opioid administration, safety end points, and cost were the main variables examined. RESULTS: The study compared 457 patients in 2016-2017 with 428 patients in 2020-2021. The median hospital length of stay decreased from 24.6 h in 2016-2017 to 5.5 h in 2020-2021 (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients requiring postoperative IV opioids decreased from 69.1 % in 2016-2017 to 50 % in 2020-2021 (p < 0.001). The rates of unplanned readmissions within 30 days after mastectomy did not differ between the two groups, with a rate of 3.7 % in 2016-2017 and a rate of 5.1 % in 2020-2021 (p = 0.30). Reducing the rate of overnight admissions after mastectomy by 65.8 % resulted in a cost reduction of 65.8 %. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of same-day mastectomy with a reconstruction protocol across a large academic center and two satellite sites was a safe alternative to conventional mastectomy recovery plans.

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.

Diversity efforts in surgery: Are we there yet?

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess and quantify recent efforts of surgical departments in achieving diversity, equity and inclusion. METHODS: Chairs of surgery at US hospitals were identified from a database maintained by the Association of Women Surgeons and surveyed to assess diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. RESULTS: A total of 226 surveys were sent out with a 22.6% response rate. Across all survey respondents, only 28.2% of surgeons were female and 24.4% were URiM, with no programs reporting any non-binary surgeons. In the last 3 years, 95.8% programs reported an increase in female surgeons, while only 75.5% programs reported an increase in URiM surgeons. Program size made no difference in diversity across race or gender. DISCUSSION: Recent recruitment efforts are bringing change to departments of surgery. Retaining diverse faculty, ensuring equity in promotions, and giving every faculty the opportunity to thrive is essential to fostering diversity, equity and inclusion in surgery.

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.

Does An ERAS Protocol Reduce Postoperative Opiate Prescribing in Plastic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are effective at reducing inpatient opiate use. There is a paucity of studies on the effects of an ERAS protocol on outpatient opiate prescriptions. The aim of this study was to determine whether an ERAS protocol for plastic and reconstructive surgery would reduce opiate use in the outpatient postoperative setting. METHODS: A statewide (Massachusetts, USA) controlled substance prescription monitoring database was retrospectively reviewed to assess the prescribing patterns of a single academic plastic surgeon performing common plastic surgical outpatient operations. The time period prior to implementation of the ERAS protocol was then compared with the time period following protocol implementation. An additional three months of post-implementation data were then compared with those of each of the previous time periods to investigate whether the results were sustained. RESULTS: A comparison of opiate prescriptions in pre-ERAS, immediate post-ERAS procedures, and follow-up ERAS implementation procedures revealed a statistically significant decrease in opiate prescriptions after ERAS protocol implementation. This decrease in the quantity of opiates prescribed was sustained over time . CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols are effective at reducing outpatient opiate prescriptions after a variety of plastic surgery operations. Appropriate patient and physician education is paramount for success.

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.

Similar rates of residual disease in patients with DCIS within 2 mm of lumpectomy margin regardless of the presence of invasive carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology (SSO/ASTRO) breast-conserving surgery (BCS) margin guidelines for invasive cancer recommended "no ink on tumor" as an adequate margin width. However, 2016 SSO/ASTRO margin guidelines for pure DCIS recommended a 2 mm margin. Thus, management of a margin with DCIS > 0 mm but < 2 mm differs based on presence or absence of invasive carcinoma. We compared rates of residual disease in patients with pure DCIS to patients with invasive cancer with DCIS. METHODS: BCS with complete shaved cavity margins (SCM) for invasive carcinoma or pure DCIS from 2004 to 2006 at our institution was reviewed. Margin width was measured on the main specimen and the presence of carcinoma in the SCM was used as a surrogate for residual disease in the cavity. Rates of residual disease were determined for varying margin widths of invasive carcinoma and DCIS. RESULTS: Of 329 BCS patients, 123 (37%) patients had pure DCIS and 206 (63%) had invasive cancer with DCIS. In the pure DCIS cohort, 61 patients had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 32 (52%) of which had residual disease in the SCM. In the invasive cancer plus DCIS cohort, 92 had DCIS between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin; 39 (42%) of which had residual disease in the SCM (p = 0.221). CONCLUSION: Rates of residual disease are similar in patients treated with lumpectomy for pure DCIS and those with invasive carcinoma with DCIS when DCIS is found between 0 and 2 mm from the inked margin.

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.

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.