Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and management of silicone lymphadenopathy: A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Implant-based breast augmentations and reconstructions are one of the most common surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons in the United States, which has rapidly increased in popularity since the 2000s. Silicone lymphadenopathy (SL) is a complication of breast implants that involves migration of silicone to nearby soft tissue/lymph nodes. Data on its clinical features and management is scarce. METHODS: SL-related search terms were used to find articles in 3 databases. Of 598 articles, 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Demographics, clinical presentation, workup, and management data were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 279 cases of SL and 107 with information on initial diagnosis, 35 (33%) were incidental. The most common symptom was painless lymphadenopathy, followed by painful lymphadenopathy. 251 (95%) and 13 (5%) patients had silicone and saline implants, respectively. 149 (68%) patients had implant rupture. Axillary lymphadenopathy was the most affected region (136 cases, 72%), followed by internal mammary (40 cases, 21%), cervical/supraclavicular (36 cases, 19%), and mediastinal (24 cases, 13%) regions. 25% of patients underwent fine-needle aspiration, 12% core needle biopsy, and 59% excisional biopsy. 32% of cases underwent explantation and/or implant exchange. The most common indication for surgery was implant rupture. Histology showed multinucleated giant cells, large histiocytes, and silicone accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: SL is a complication associated with breast implants. The majority of patients are asymptomatic, and most cases are managed conservatively. Minority need a biopsy and surgical interventions due to abnormal imaging, persistent symptoms, and/or implant rupture. Workup and management should be tailored to the patient.

A Multi-institutional Analysis of Factors Influencing the Rate of Positive MRI Biopsy Among Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) is increasing, but its utility in detecting additional malignancy is unclear and delays surgical management (Jatoi and Benson in Future Oncol 9:347-353, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.12.186 , Bleicher et al. J Am Coll Surg 209:180-187, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.04.010 , Borowsky et al. J Surg Res 280:114-122, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.06.066 ). The present study sought to identify ESBC patients most likely to benefit from preoperative MRI by assessing the positive predictive values (PPVs) of ipsilateral and contralateral biopsies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included patients with cTis-T2N0-N1 breast cancer from two institutions during 2016-2021. A "positive" biopsy result was defined as additional cancer (PositiveCancer) or cancer with histology often excised (PositiveSurg). The PPV of MRI biopsies was calculated with respect to age, family history, breast density, and histology. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression determined whether combinations of age younger than 50 years, dense breasts, family history, and pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) histology led to higher biopsy yield. RESULTS: Of the included patients, 447 received preoperative MRI and 131 underwent 149 MRI-guided biopsies (96 ipsilateral, 53 contralateral [18 bilateral]). PositiveCancer for ipsilateral biopsy was 54.2%, and PositiveCancer for contralateral biopsy was 17.0%. PositiveSurg for ipsilateral biopsy was 62.5%, and PositiveSurg for contralateral biopsy was 24.5%. Among the contralateral MRI biopsies, patients younger than 50 years were less likely to have PositiveSurg (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.84; p = 0.041). The combinations of age, density, family history, and histology did not lead to a higher biopsy yield. CONCLUSION: Historically accepted factors for recommending preoperative MRI did not appear to confer a higher MRI biopsy yield. To prevent delays to surgical management, MRI should be carefully selected for individual patients most likely to benefit from additional imaging.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Postoperative Outcomes After Staged Versus Coordinated Breast Surgery and Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare postoperative complication rates and healthcare charges between patients who underwent coordinated versus staged breast surgery and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The MarketScan administrative database was used to identify adult female patients with invasive breast cancer or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations who underwent BSO and breast surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without reconstruction) between 2010 and 2015. Patients were assigned to the coordinated group if a breast operation and BSO were performed simultaneously or assigned to the staged group if BSO was performed separately. Primary outcomes were (1) incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and (2) 2-year aggregate perioperative healthcare charges. Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4228 patients who underwent breast surgery and BSO, 412 (9.7%) were in the coordinated group and 3816 (90.3%) were in the staged group. The coordinated group had a higher incidence of postoperative complications (24.0% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.01), higher risk-adjusted odds of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.76, p = 0.02], and similar aggregate healthcare charges before (median charges: $106,500 vs. $101,555, p = 0.96) and after risk-adjustment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.07; p = 0.95]. In a subgroup analysis, incidence of postoperative complications (12.9% for coordinated operations vs. 11.7% for staged operation, p = 0.73) was similar in patients whose breast operation was a lumpectomy. CONCLUSIONS: While costs were similar, coordinating breast surgery with BSO was associated with more complications in patients who underwent mastectomy, but not in patients who underwent lumpectomy. These data should inform shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

Advances in the Management of Menopausal Symptoms, Fertility Preservation, and Bone Health for Women With Breast Cancer on Endocrine Therapy.

In patients with hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer, adjuvant endocrine treatment administered for up to 5-10 years after diagnosis significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and death. However, this benefit comes with the cost of short- and long-term side effects that may negatively affect patients' quality of life (QoL) and treatment adherence. Among them, the prolonged estrogen suppression associated with the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women can induce life-altering menopausal symptoms, including sexual dysfunction. Moreover, a decrease in bone mineral density and an increased risk of fractures should be carefully considered and prevented whenever indicated. For young women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer with unfulfilled childbearing plans, several challenges should be addressed to manage their fertility and pregnancy-related concerns. Proper counseling and proactive management of these issues are critical components of survivorship and should be pursued from diagnosis through the breast cancer care continuum. This study aims to provide an updated overview of the available approaches for improving the QoL of patients with breast cancer receiving estrogen deprivation therapy, focusing on advances in the management of menopausal symptoms, including sexual dysfunction, fertility preservation, and bone health.

Re-Evaluating the Association Between Hormonal Contraception and Breast Cancer Risk.

This review aims to summarize and assess key studies investigating the relationship between hormonal contraception and breast cancer risk. Approximately two-thirds of breast cancers express the estrogen receptor, and long-term exposure to estrogen is a debated risk factor for breast cancer development. This hypothesis is based on prior studies looking at reproductive risk factors (endogenous estrogen exposure) along with hormone replacement therapy (exogenous hormone exposure). Historically accepted reproductive risk factors include age at menarche, age at first delivery, and parity. Exogenous hormone exposure encompasses both receipt of hormonal contraception and menopausal hormone replacement therapy. This review highlights the reported risks associated with the most common hormonal contraception methods including oral, transdermal, and transvaginal routes. Large observational studies of the past and more recent works are summarized highlighting gaps in knowledge. Several themes emerge: difficulty accounting for well-established risk factors in analyses of epidemiologic studies, challenges determining whether associations between hormonal contraception and breast cancer are due to the exogenous hormones themselves or to increased engagement with the medical system, and discrepancies between statistically significant and clinically significant risk, odds, and hazard ratios. Understanding the strengths and limitations of these studies will help providers in and outside of oncology support women making decisions regarding both cancer risk-reduction and family planning.

Addressing an epidemic: Improving guideline-concordant opioid prescribing in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Excess postoperative opioid prescribing increases the risk of opioid abuse, diversion, and addiction. Clinicians receive variable training for opioid prescribing, and despite the availability of guidelines, wide variations in prescribing practices persist. This quality improvement initiative aimed to assess and improve institutional adherence to published guidelines. METHODS: This study represented a quality improvement initiative at an academic medical center implemented over a 6-month period with data captured 1 year before and after implementation. The quality improvement initiative focused on prescribing education and monthly feedback reports for clinicians. All opioid-naïve, adult patients undergoing a reviewed procedure were included. Demographics, surgical details, hospital course, and opioid prescriptions were reviewed. Opioids prescribed on discharge were evaluated for concordance with recommendations based on published guidelines. Pre- and postimplementation cohorts were compared. RESULTS: There were 4,905 patients included: 2,343 preimplementation and 2,562 postimplementation. There were similar distributions in patient demographics between the 2 cohorts. Guideline-concordant discharge prescriptions improved from 50.3% to 72.2% after the quality improvement initiative was implemented (P < .001). Adjusted analysis controlling for sex, age, discharge clinician, length of stay, outpatient surgery, and procedure demonstrated a 190% increase in odds of receiving a guideline-concordant opioid prescription on discharge in the postimplementation cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.90; 95% confidence interval = 2.55-3.30). CONCLUSION: This study represented a successful quality improvement initiative improving guideline-concordant opioid discharges and decreasing overprescribing. This study suggested published guidelines are insufficient without close attention to elements of effective change management including the critical importance of locally targeting educational efforts and suggested that real-time, data-driven feedback amplifies impact on prescribing behavior.

The Association of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) With Surgical Management in Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of mastectomy in lumpectomy-eligible patients with unilateral breast cancer is increasing. We sought to investigate the association between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical management of patients with early-stage breast cancer by comparing the rate of mastectomy as first surgery in patients with and without preoperative MRI. METHODS: A bi-institutional retrospective study included patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2020. Lumpectomy-eligible patients with in situ and invasive cancer were included. Those receiving preoperative therapy, MRI before diagnosis, or with known bilateral cancer were excluded. The risk factors for bilateral and multicentric disease were accounted for. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests compared categorical variables, Wilcoxon two-sample test analyzed continuous variables, and multivariate analyses were performed with Poisson regression. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-eight participants met inclusion criteria. Patients who received MRI were younger (58 versus 67 y; P < 0.001) and had denser breasts (group 3 or 4; 61% versus 25%; P < 0.001). Mastectomy rate was twice as high in patients undergoing MRI (32% versus 15%, rate ratio 2.16; P < 0.001), which remained significant in multivariate analysis (rate ratio 2.0; P < 0.001). Contralateral mastectomy (12% versus 4%; P = 0.466) and reexcision (13% versus 12%; P = 0.519) rates were similar. Time to surgery was greater in those receiving MRI alone and MRI biopsy (34 [no MRI] versus 45 [MRI] versus 62 [MRI biopsy]; P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: MRI receipt is associated with a doubled rate of mastectomy in lumpectomy-eligible patients. Future work is needed to standardize patient selection for MRI to those with the highest likelihood of having additional undiagnosed disease.

No One-Size-Fits-All: Sexual Health Education Preferences in Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Using explanatory mixed methods, we characterize the education that patients with breast cancer received about potential sexual health effects of treatment and explore preferences in format, content, and timing of education. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with stage 0-IV breast cancer seen at an academic breast center during December 2020 were emailed questionnaires assessing sexual health symptoms experienced during treatment. Patients interested in further study involvement were invited to participate in semistructured interviews. These interviews explored sexual health education provided by the oncology team and patient preferences in content, format, and timing of education delivery. RESULTS: Eighty-seven (32%) patients completed the questionnaire. Most patients reported decreased sexual desire (69%), vaginal dryness (63%), and less energy for sexual activity (62%) during/after treatment. Sixteen patients participated in interviews. Few women reported receiving information about potential sexual effects of breast cancer treatment; patients who did reported a focus on menopausal symptoms or fertility rather than sexual function. Regarding preferences in format, patients were in favor of multiple options being offered rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, with particular emphasis on in-person options and support groups. Patients desired education early and often throughout breast cancer treatment, not only about sexual side effects but also on mitigation strategies, sexual function, dating and partner intimacy, and body image changes. CONCLUSION: Few patients received information about the sexual health effects of breast cancer treatment, though many experienced symptoms. Potential adverse effects should be discussed early and addressed often throughout treatment, with attention to strategies to prevent and alleviate symptoms and improve overall sexual health.

Treatment and Survivorship Interventions to Prevent Poor Body Image Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors.

Body image concerns often arise during and after treatment and are a major concern in up to 67% of breast cancer survivors. Negative changes in body image are a predictor of worse satisfaction with appearance and poor quality of life outcomes. Opportunities to mitigate the negative impact of cancer treatment on a patient's body image present during preoperative education or in the neoadjuvant setting, or during surgical management, adjuvant therapy delivery, and survivorship. The surgical management of breast cancer has evolved from breast amputations to procedures that provide improved cosmesis without compromising the oncologic outcome. The advent of the sentinel lymph node biopsy and lymphatic reconstruction techniques has led to decreased axillary morbidity. Modified radiation techniques and systemic therapies tailored to subtype limit unnecessary exposure to skin and systemic toxicities. Finally, incorporating prehabilitation and survivorship support optimizes the physical and psychosocial well-being of these patients. Setting expectations, treatment de-escalation when appropriate, morbidity risk reduction and improved screening and management of psychological sequelae during survivorship can decrease breast cancer treatment's negative impact on body image. The following review synthesizes interventions during preoperative planning, local and systemic treatment, and survivorship to prevent poor body image outcomes without compromising oncologic success.

Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia Protocol for Lumpectomy Patients Results in Superior Postoperative Pain Control.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if lumpectomy patients who received perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia reported less pain when compared with those who received traditional opioid-based care. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing lumpectomy who received an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol [no opioids group (NOP)] was compared with a large cohort of patients who received traditional care [opioids group (OG)]. In-hospital and discharge opioids were compared using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Overall, 1153 patients underwent lumpectomy: 634 patients received the protocol (NOP), and 519 patients did not (OG). Median pain scores were significantly lower in the NOP cohort when compared with the OG cohort the day after surgery (2 vs. 0, p < 0.001) and the week after surgery (1 vs. 0, p < 0.001). NOP patients were significantly less likely to report severe pain (7-10 on a 10-point scale) the day after surgery compared with OG patients (15.7% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004). Patients in the NOP cohort were discharged with a median of zero OMEs (range 0-150), while patients in the OG were discharged with a median of 90 OMEs (range 0-360; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol for lumpectomy patients resulted in superior pain control without a routine opioid prescription. Surgeons can improve their own patients' outcomes while addressing the larger societal issue of the opioid crisis by adopting similar protocols that decrease the quantity of opioids available for diversion.

Evaluation of opioid prescribing preferences among surgical residents and faculty.

BACKGROUND: Residents report that faculty preference is a significant driver of opioid prescribing practices. This study compared opioid prescribing preferences of surgical residents and faculty against published guidelines and actual practice and assessed perceptions in communication and transparency around these practices. METHODS: Surgical residents and faculty were surveyed to evaluate the number of oxycodone tablets prescribed for common procedures. Quantities were compared between residents, faculty, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network guidelines, and actual opioids prescribed. Frequency with which faculty communicate prescribing preferences and the desire for feedback and transparency in prescription practices were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-six (72%) residents and 57 (59%) faculty completed the survey. Overall, faculty preferred a median number of tablets greater than recommended by Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network in 5 procedures, while residents did so in 9 of 14 procedures. On average, across all operations, faculty reported prescribing practices compliant with Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network 56.1% of the time, whereas residents did so 47.6% of the time (P = .40). Interestingly, opioids actually prescribed were significantly less than recommended in 7 procedures. Among faculty, 62% reported often or always specifying prescription preferences to residents, while only 9% of residents noted that faculty often did so. Residents (80%) and faculty (75%) were amenable to seeing regular reports of personal opioid prescription practices, and 74% and 65% were amenable to seeing practices compared with peers. Only 34% of residents and 44% of faculty wanted prescription practices made public. CONCLUSION: There is a disconnect between opioid prescribing preferences and practice among surgical residents and faculty. Increased transparency through individualized reports and education regarding Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network guidelines with incorporation into the electronic medical record as practice advisories may reduce prescription variability.

Obese Patients Who Receive an Opioid-Sparing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol are at Increased Risk of Persistent Pain After Breast Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients are at increased risk of persistent pain and chronic opioid dependence after surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in breast surgery patients to determine whether multimodal analgesia was effective for both obese and non-obese patients. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing breast surgery who received an opioid-sparing ERAS protocol was compared with patients who did not receive ERAS, including a historical cohort. Pain scores were compared with respect to body mass index (BMI). Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30, and moderate to severe pain was defined as 4-10 of a 10-point scale. Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A combined contemporary and historical cohort of 1353 patients underwent lumpectomy and mastectomy without reconstruction. The present analysis comprises 622 patients with pain scores who did and did not receive ERAS between 2015 and 2018. The two groups were demographically similar. The day after surgery, those who received ERAS reported lower rates of moderate to severe pain, regardless of BMI (obese: 46.3% vs. 21.8%, p < 0.001; non-obese: 36.3% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.002). One week after surgery, obese patients who received ERAS had higher rates of persistent pain compared with non-obese patients (18.6% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: An opioid-sparing ERAS protocol utilizing multimodal analgesia significantly improved postoperative pain control for obese and non-obese patients. However, it appears that obese patients are still at relatively greater risk for persistent pain after surgery.

Larvae of Musca domestica (common house fly) found intraoperatively in a male breast abscess.

A 62-year-old male with type 2 diabetes mellitus presented to our nationally accredited breast center with bilateral breast masses present for 7 years and new-onset pink nipple discharge for several months. Mammography and ultrasound demonstrated a left 2.7 retroareolar cystic lesion and a right 2.1 cm retroareolar solid lesion. Given the suspicious nature of the bilateral breast discharge, core needle biopsies were performed to rule out underlying malignancy. The biopsies revealed benign results, but the discordance between the biopsy, imaging, and suspicious discharge led to the decision to perform bilateral excisional biopsies. Intraoperatively, a small organism resembling a larva was encountered. The abnormal tissue was sent for histopathological examination, along with the organism, which was identified as the larvae of Musca domestica, or common house fly.